if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
How They Blew It
by Lee
Once again, I was right.
Almost three months into President Bush’s second term, a raft of economic and social issues—Social Security, immigration, gay marriage and the recent national debate over Terri Schiavo—is splintering the Republican base.
After winning re-election on the strength of support from nine in 10 Republican voters, the president is seeing significant chunks of that base balk at major initiatives, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows. One-third of Republicans say Democrats in Congress should prevent Mr. Bush and party leaders from “going too far in pushing their agenda,” and 41% oppose eliminating filibusters against Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees—the “nuclear option” that Senate Republican leaders are considering.
The Schiavo case has opened another rift. Though Mr. Bush and Republican congressional leaders acted to maximize the opportunity for reinserting Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube, 39% of Republicans said removing the tube was “the right thing to do,” while 48% said it was wrong. About 18% of Republicans say they lost respect for Mr. Bush on the issue and 41% lost respect for Congress. The survey of 1,002 adults, conducted March 31-April 3, has a margin for error of 3.1 percentage points in either direction; the error margin for Republicans alone is 5.2 percentage points.
This president was reelected, if not with a mandate, with a solid majority. He immediately spoke of spending the political capital that he had rightly earned with his victory. Unfortunatlely, rather than spend that capital on the core principles of the Republican Party he chose, instead, to waste it on the Terri Schiavo debacle. True, I believe that Bush was largely painted into a corner over the issue, but the Schiavo incident can’t be taken in a vacuum.
Here’s how it breaks down. America is a conservative country, it always has been. As much as the American left would like to turn us into a market-socialist welfare state, by and large the American people reject those ideas. America has a strong work ethic, and while Americans give an astonishing amount of their incomes to private charities, the idea of a European nanny state does not resonate with a people who believe in hard work and rugged individualism. We also believe in a strong national defense, the right of the individual to own firearms, and a general concept that the government should only be as big as it needs to be. So while there are genuine disagreements between the left and the right, as a whole I think the American people tend to lean right of center on most issues, though not dramatically so.
This explains the election. Bush spoke of moral issues specifically to paint Kerry into a corner over his support for abortion and patrtial birth abortion, the latter being a point of contention even with people who overall support abortion rights. And Bush had Kerry beaten hands-down on the issues of terrorism and national security. Kerry’s “I’ll respond if we’re attacked again” attitude was demolished by Bush’s “Let’s put on our boots and go kill some fuckin’ terrorists” posture. And Bush also played well with people who think their taxes are too high, which is just about everyone in the country. Even though Bush’s economic policies are going to guarantee a massive tax increase at some point in the future, he was able to point out that Kerry would raise everyone’s taxes. Advantage Bush. So I think it’s fair to say that Bush was more in tune overall with the American people, even if those same people don’t particularly like Bush as a president. He was a better choice than Kerry for most Americans.
The reason I bring this up is that rather than choose to take advantage of this victory in ways that could benefit the country as a whole, he chose to blow it on the Terri Schiavo case. Not only did Bush and the Republicans stick their nose in where it wasn’t warranted, but they just solidified in the mind of every swing voter (who most likely voted with Bush over defense issues) that the GOP is nothing but the lapdog of the Religious Right. So not only did Bush blow it over the Schiavo case, but now nobody is going to give him the benefit of the doubt over Social Security. I think the concept of an “ownership society” is one that will easily ring true with the American people, but so far Bush and the GOP have done an absolutely pathetic job making their case. And the fact that the Schiavo case has pissed off the libertarian contingent and the swing voters has done nothing to help him in this endeavor.
What the GOP needs to realize is that while America is an extremely religious country, people here do not want their religion and their politics fused into one. There is a huge difference between being supporting of free religious expression (as I am) and having my morality dictated to me based upon a set of religious beliefs that I may or may not subscribe to. Simply being a Christian does not inherently mean that you will be a supporter of radical politics dictated by Christian orthodoxy. You can be a practicing, churchgoing Christian and still think that gays ought to be afforded every right that everyone else gets, or think that a public plot of land is an inappropriate place for a nativity scene, or question the logic of teaching creationism in school. Simply looking at the numbers of Christians in America and assuming their support of a radical religious agenda is grossly overestimating the support base, and does nothing but do damage to the legitimate areas in which change is truly warranted.
The true irony of this whole situation is that the ultra-religious in America already overwhelmingly supported Bush. So all he and the Republicans accomplished with their moral posturing and public Christian preening was they lost the support the bulk of the rest of the country. And Terri Schiavo is still just as dead as she would have been if they’d just decided to do what they should have done, which was nothing.
What a brilliant plan. I hope that next year, when the Democrats take back one or both houses in Congress, they all think it was worth it.
Comments
What a brilliant plan. I hope that next year, when the Democrats take back one or both houses in Congress, they all think it was worth it.
I think you are getting ahead of yourself. Americans may have hard work ethic but short attention spans. I bet most Americans don’t even remember Elian.
You also have to remember, just because they don’t like republicans right now, doesn’t mean they like Democrats any more.
I’ll bet your wrong about Elian - even makes 60 Minutes.
I really believe the extremist bible thumpers have put their foot in it. Right now they are attempting to do damage control - getting rid of that criminal Tom DeLay will be the first step. In the last 30 years the evangelistic “Republicans” have learned to be quite shrewd political players - watch as they patch up their huge faux pas.
getting rid of that criminal Tom DeLay will be the first step.
The problem with this statement is it singles out one politician for his behavior instead of the cancer that permeates our system.
In all actuality, nothing DeLay has done is illegal and criminal is a word that describes mindset and decision base. Our politicians are corrupted before they even take office. It may be that the biggest problem confronting us Democrats is the unwillingness to confront our leadership about the corner they have painted us into with the decades of corruption and backroom dealings. Let’s complain about our own Seattle O. before complaining about someone elses. That is if you aren’t so bigoted you are unable to.
Lee, Don’t attribute more influence to the religious right than they actually have. The religious left have legions in comparison. The republicans will pull together and the democrats will continue to tear apart. That die was cast in 1994 and there is no stopping it now.
This entire Schiavo episode was driven by the enormous level of calls and letters that representatives on both sides of the aisle received. Now just how were you so fooled by the press that you buy the “It Was All The Republicans” bullshit? Did you believe the polls that were skewed more than the 2004 exit polls? When actually presented with facts of this case people chose for Terri by nearly 9:1. Methinks the sewer called Califonia has clouded your libertarian vision. Perhaps a move to Jesus Land will clear your head.
You might even find a woman worth marrying.
When actually presented with facts of this case people chose for Terri by nearly 9:1
Just because people supposedly ‘chose for Terri’ still did not make what Congress and the President did right.
This entire Schiavo episode was driven by the enormous level of calls and letters that representatives on both sides of the aisle received. Now just how were you so fooled by the press that you buy the “It Was All The Republicans” bullshit? Did you believe the polls that were skewed more than the 2004 exit polls? When actually presented with facts of this case people chose for Terri by nearly 9:1. Methinks the sewer called Califonia has clouded your libertarian vision. Perhaps a move to Jesus Land will clear your head.
Is it the GOP strategy in every instance to now blame a clear reality such as the Shiavo thing being ‘all Republicans’ on the media? Why can’t we get real and drop these crutches? It’s a lame argument, and one that disregards the fact that it WAS the Republicans on CSPAN wasting Congressional time for the sake of a political farce. The taxpayers of this country lost a day or two of hard work that we deserved for this fiasco that was planed by a Republican and orchestrated by Republicans.
The media held the cameras, complied in playing the disturbing footage of Terri, and complied also in allowing the air-time to become almost entirely spun on this issue for well over a week. They provided what the Republicans wanted, but since the spotlight has been aimed directly at why it all came about in the first place - it’s now the fault of the media for it all going down that way?
It’s a ridiculous argument. If Republicans hadn’t hatched this scheme to exploit her condition for political game in the first place, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. No?
When actually presented with facts of this case people chose for Terri by nearly 9:1.
What facts would those be, then?
Just a little comment here-
But if we have Dems in the congress, and a Rep in the White house, then we would have fewer laws passed, eh? A nice Veto here and there would be good. Maybe not as tight of a budget, but look at the one we have now!
By getting one majority in both positions we get stupid laws, pork barreling, and related one sided BS will just run rampant. Maybe with this “splintering” of the Rep base we will get some check and balance.
Just a though......
Josh
I am complaining about one our own - I vote Republican usually, and DeLay sort of qualifies as one.
I’m saying this one issue was driven by public opinion and it spanned both sides of the aisle. It is the press that paints this as a partisan issue when it was bi-partisan initially.
The public did not want to deprive a helpless person of nutrition. She was never PVS and her termination only became an issue once Mr. S. started a new life with another woman. Those are facts which attack values that span all the electorate. Hiding behind the shameful fact that “It happens every day by law” is ridiculous and does not make it right, only legal. There are manifold legal abuses that need correcting and these situations are amongst them. The courts don’t have any business in these situations any more than the legislative does. The family and the doctors should be the only arbiters.
Back to the topic. To say this is being exploited by one set of religionists is illusionary. The religionists that represent the opposition to the congressional action are politicizing the issue and perhaps moreso. Religion in America isn’t exclusively represented by the multiple “Christian” factions or republicans. The zealots of MoveOn dwarf the zeal of the typical right leaning, publicly Christian person. Present an opinion that differs from the leftist dogma and see how fast the knives come out.
My apologies SO. Perhaps any attempt by the public to rid our public officers of corrupt influence would star a civil war?
Posted by spacedog on 04/11 at 10:07 AM
I’m saying this one issue was driven by public opinion and it spanned both sides of the aisle. It is the press that paints this as a partisan issue when it was bi-partisan initially.
The public did not want to deprive a helpless person of nutrition. She was never PVS and her termination only became an issue once Mr. S. started a new life with another woman. Those are facts which attack values that span all the electorate. Hiding behind the shameful fact that “It happens every day by law” is ridiculous and does not make it right, only legal. There are manifold legal abuses that need correcting and these situations are amongst them. The courts don’t have any business in these situations any more than the legislative does. The family and the doctors should be the only arbiters.
Back to the topic. To say this is being exploited by one set of religionists is illusionary. The religionists that represent the opposition to the congressional action are politicizing the issue and perhaps moreso. Religion in America isn’t exclusively represented by the multiple “Christian” factions or republicans. The zealots of MoveOn dwarf the zeal of the typical right leaning, publicly Christian person. Present an opinion that differs from the leftist dogma and see how fast the knives come out.
I have to disagree completely with this analysis. The memo came from an elected Republican, and the background of an upcoming battle over judicial nominations presented an opportunity to possibly make some quick political bucks. It wasn’t the Democrats in front of cameras, and it wasn’t the Democrats drafting legislation in regards to Mrs. Shiavo.
‘The media’ does not equal a failsafe excuse for bad behavior when our chosen political leaders are at fault. Your use of it in this instance is a perfect example of where the tactic is completely invalid.
Further proof of this is the fact that once she passed away, it was Republican Congressmen who were providing the rhetoric as to how action to hold the judiciary accountable was warranted based on her death.
The media didn’t put a gun to Tom Delay’s head and tell him to say what he said. He politicized it further following her death, and his party continued with their poorly thought out ploy to leverage her case for their own purposes. All that ended up happening was that they preached to the same people they had in the fold already, and in turn actually reduced that number when it was all said and done.
It was a political move - not a ‘nothing’ situation that the media created. If this were so, there would be no legislation with her name on it, no?
Don’t you think that Democrats sqawking about about ‘states rights’ would be as disingenuous as the ‘culture of life’ Republicans? Either way, you are being played.
I’ve pretty much stayed out of this debate, Lee. But, I DO have to agree that W has pretty much pissed away that “political capital I’ve earned, and NOW I’m going to spend it!” As I recall, that was pretty close to his comments.
The Republicans are very, very close to electing Hillary Clinton in 2008. I hate to say that, but I think we’re getting closer and closer to this possibility.
LEE!
Somewhat on-topic, somewhat not, but I had to send this to you and your readers.
Who’s conscience rules?
This is some scary shit! Please read it and check to see if your legisltors are supporting any “conscience clause” legislation. If they are, and you think it’s a sad day in conservative politics when so-called “conservatives” want to make laws allowing your phamacist to “decide” not to dispense your medication because they personally oppose what it MIGHT be treating, then CALL THEM and share your outrage.
Deb,
If your pharmacist won’t fill your prescription, go somewhere else. Why should the government get involved in deciding what prescriptions pharmacies are required to carry and fill? I go to stores all the time that don’t have what I want. I leave and go somewhere else to buy it. This is not difficult nor scary.
Lee,
While I agree with you on the decision to pull the feeding tube, you shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed in what the president and the congress did on this one. I like the president because he appears to be a man of his word. Based on what he’s done in the past and his rhetoric during the campaign, it’s pretty clear that he places his moral code above unrestricted freedom and states’ rights. So it’s no surprise that he stepped in on the Schiavo case because he saw it as a case of an innocent life being extinguished unnecessarily. If this angers you, you shouldn’t have voted for him.
It’s property rights Deb. If it’s the pharmacists property, he should be able to use in any manner he chooses. If he clearly labels his pharmacy as a “conscience pharmacy”, I don’t have a problem with it.
svandals,
Perhaps you haven’t heard but one of the cases that sparked this involved a Pharmacist who refused to TRANSFER a prescription which resulted in a two-day delay in a woman getting her prescription, thus two missed doses.
You are also missing the point. If you have an advanced directive (which I do and many people had even pre-Terri-Schiavo), and a doctor (or a hospital for that matter, it’s not just specific doctors/pharmacists, etc..., it’s insurance carriers and hospitals as well) refused to honor that directive because he (or she) “disagreed” with it on conscience grounds, how would you feel? Well, in theory, you’d “feel” nothing because you’d be lying in an irreversible state, or about to be, but imagine if you were facing death and the thought that you might--against your will--be put on a machine, and your family bled-dry financially and tormented for years because the law protected the doctors and hospitals who refused to honor your wishes?
In the wake of the Schiavo ordeal, while we’re all being told to run out and write living wills, there is this bullshit going on in stealth, very much behind the scenes where you and I won’t see it, and if some of these bills pass, the scenario I described won’t just be a fear, it will be a reality for many people.
If a Pharmacist works for CVS or Walgreens, it most certainly is NOT “his” property! That is the lamest argument I ever heard!
Besides mishu, you too are missing the point of the piece I posted. The GOP (if they are the ones, and I think they are) supporting these bills have gone off the deep end.
I’m sorry, I’m still laughing (in a comi-tragic way) about mishu’s response--defending “conscience” laws using property rights! Holy crap, that is the stupidist thing I’ve ever heard!
So then I suppose the hospital can refuse medical treatment because they “own” the ER, the operating rooms and the equipment? Never mind the hipocratic oath--they OWN that shit, why should they use it in a way that is inconsistent with their belief structure.
When you become a doctor or a pharmacist, you take an OATH, you get a license to practice your craft (and to purchase and sell your wares which ARE restricted), you don’t get to pick and choose which legally written prescriptions to fill, you just don’t. I suppose you can decide not to carry birth control in the first place, fine, but as you say, advertise as such so no one gets hurt, but you shouldn’t be protected because you decide to pick and choose.
What if someone needs birth control because getting pregnant would be dangerous to their health (I know a diabetic for whom this is the case--she’d opt for sterilization except she’s hoping for a new treatment in the near future). Should she be refused on religious grounds? Should she have to search high and low in her state for someone to fill her prescription? I think this is BULLSHIT.
As the op-ed piece says, conscience without consequence is the issue here. Go ahead, refuse people medicine and treatment, just don’t expect to do it and get away with it. That’s not “conscience” so much as tyranny of the minority.
what pisses me off about this lee, is the fact that i didnt agree with you before, cuz i didnt wanna believe republicans were acting like idiots… but now i see that they have been. theres plenty of moon bats on the left. we dont fucking need any on the right
If a Pharmacist works for CVS or Walgreens, it most certainly is NOT “his” property! That is the lamest argument I ever heard!
I think you completely missed mishu’s point. Whoever owns the business is allowed to decide what products and services they provide. If CVS decides not to provide a drug, that is totally their right. It’s similar to saying that a fast-food restaurant must, by law, provide low-fat foods.
What if someone needs birth control because getting pregnant would be dangerous to their health?
What if a woman comes in, 8 1/2 months pregnant, and tells her doctor she wants an abortion. Would he be allowed to refuse if he were pro-life?
Doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions on the grounds of conscience.
Hey Deb, if any state in the union is free to establish sharia law according to the states rights proponents here, then a business owner is free to decide which products he can sell.
I think you completely missed mishu’s point. Whoever owns the business is allowed to decide what products and services they provide. If CVS decides not to provide a drug, that is totally their right. It’s similar to saying that a fast-food restaurant must, by law, provide low-fat foods.
This is a faith-based loophole that allows religious pharmacists to discriminate against their customers. It also presents a situation where communities can leverage these pharmacists to engage in political warfare...meaning a pharmacist who continues to supply birth control pills in a community that frowns on it could end up becoming a victim in a boyocott.
Allowing this to take place can not only lead to a higher amount of unplaned pregnancies in these states, but the pharmacist who has no religious affiliation can in turn end up being punnished for not believing in a certain religion.
The pharmacy provides a service in the community that must be available to every citizen that resides there. Medication is an essential element in the lives of millions of Americans, and political activism beneath the guise of ‘religious freedom’ has no place in it. A pharmacist provides an essential service to their community and provides a procedural function within the health care system. Doctors prescribe, the pharmacist completes the transaction. Their function is procedural...read a piece of paper, enter the insurance information, fill the bottle, put the money in the cash register.
If they have some religious scruples that would prevent them from doing the job, then they need to find another line of work. On a scale of importance in our health care system, the pharmacist is about as bottom of the barrel as it gets. There’s no way that this function of our system should have the right to pick and chose what they’re going to do. They’re players in a health care system, and the patient must always come before personal beliefs if it’s to function properly.
Any chain pharmacy that has a pharmacist refusing to fill prescriptions will replace them in short time. This legislation serves no purpose but to remind someone like me of the fact that if allowed to do so, Evangelical Christianty will jump at any chance to squeeze the freedom out of being an American. To these people it’s about the religion first and the country second. It’s not about what’s good for everyone, but what’s good for ‘ME ME ME’.
Deny non-believers their medication...it’s sick!
Doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions on the grounds of conscience.
If you’re comparing doctors to pharmacists, it’s like comparing baseball players with batboys. Doctors choose a specialty, and just like a brain surgeon can refuse to perform a nosejob, a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion.
A pharmacist is a pharmacist. There’s no vast array of specialties. The argument is ridiculous.
If you are not going to fill legal prescriptions written by a doctor, then you have no business “serving” the community as a licensed pharmacist. Your personal opinion about somebody else’s medical care is without merit - furthermore, it is none of your business.
If you can’t do your job, then get out of the business. If some asswipe interferes with my medical treatment due to their own “morality” they will have plenty of time to think it over in the emergency room, because I will be going over that counter with the intention of busting somebody up big time.
At what point do their religious convictions quit superceding my medical requirements? And whose religion gets upheld? Suppose the pharmacist converts to be a sect that believes in nothing other than “natural” medicines?
Furthermore, pharmacists are licensed - if you don’t want to live up to your obligations your license needs to be revoked.
Deb: Those laws sound like lawsuits in the making if they ever take effect. What’s next, firefighters who refuse to come to your house? If a patient, say, a Christian Scientist, wants to refuse treatment that’s one thing (we could always do with less Christian Scientists in the world)but the only criteria for refusing treatment on a doctor’s or a pharmacist’s part should be medical.
Dead issue and Seattle Outcase “get it” apparently.
If you read the article I posted (mishu and others) you will see that the writer (and I) have no issue with doctors refusing to perform any number of procedures (provided they are non-emergency--refusing to do a hysterectomy on a woman who is bleeding out post-childbirth or after a rupture of ectopic pregnancy, if it’s warranted, is murder, I don’t care how you slice it), and the conscience laws that protect doctors from being forced to perform abortions are not the issue here. What is at issue are the many pieces of sneaky legislation put forth that use the same argument.
For a lawmaker to write a bill that basically equates birth control, ED drugs, anti-depressants and any number of other “morally questionable” drugs to ABORTION is not just absurd, it’s disgusting.
It’s one thing to want to protect the lives of the unborn, it’s quite another to FORCE women to conceive in the first place! This is what I’ll never get--the same people who oppose abortion oppose birth control!
matthew, I agree with you--sounds like lawsuits doesn’t it? But if these laws pass in the states where they are proposed (and they have already in Michigan by the way), then the plaintiff will have little ground upon which to stand, unless the SCOTUS wants to weigh in (which I believe they eventually would, but how many people would be hurt in the meantime--after all, they don’t intercede, they hear cases as they are brought forth, at their discretion. It could take YEARS for them to rule (correctly) that such laws probably violate equal access or religious freedom or something like that.
I mean, you can’t sue someone if that someone is protected by law from any consequence of their actions!
And what if the libtards starting using these laws as precedent for conscience laws of their OWN. I can see it now--Columbia University admissions officers could decide not to admit Jews because of the way Israel treats Palestinians, and they’d get to keep Federal funding anyway because they were only acting in support of their “conscience” after all.
Political correctness, or legislating morality--same thing when you think about it.
Actually, the Columbia analogy is bad because it’s a private university and theoretically, they can refuse anyone they want.
A more accurate analogy would be a teacher in a public school refusing to teach kids about a subject they didn’t like or agree with on religious grounds (evolution, for example). Should they be protected too by “conscience” laws too? No, they should be FIRED.
Hey Deb, if any state in the union is free to establish sharia law according to the states rights proponents here
My god how ignorant.
Sharia law is pretty much universially unconstitutional. State’s rights proponents are almost, to a (wo)man, devotees of the Constitution.
Get a clue.
Democrats back in power...everyone “supposedly” hating Bush...you know, you’re not sounding libertarian, you’re sounding Red. In fact, you’re sounding like someone who prefers a Hammer and Sickle to a hamburger…
I don’t agree with what the GOP did but I think they made the right political desiscion.
The GOP was in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t posistion. If they didn’t run with the Schiavo case they would piss off a massive amount of their base and more than likely lose votes.
On the other hand if they did run with the case they would “overstepping” the posistion, which would piss off a great deal of their voters.
I still think that it is easier for the GOP, to recover from the latter of these two just for the simple fact its easier to defend the wrong action in defense of someone’s life as opposed to watching your politcal ass.
No matter how this turned out the GOP was screwed. But only because the parents had to parade this around television like it was a circus.
Suppose the pharmacist converts to be a sect that believes in nothing other than “natural” medicines?
Then you go to another pharmacy. If the company that the pharmacist works for disagrees with his new stance, they fire him. If it’s his own pharmacy, and enough people disagree with his new religion, he goes out of business.
I hear similar arguments about school vouchers in California: “What if witches decide to open a school down the street????” My response is: “Send your kids to another school!”
That being said, I agree with the assertion that there should be no laws regarding this. But then again, I don’t think it should be against the law for a pharmacy to not stock a particular drug. Would you be opposed to a pharmacy not carrying RU486, or another “morning-after” pill?
I’ll put my libertarian hat on for a minute...why should the government be involved in telling any private business what they can and can not do, or what products they must sell? The market will take care of it. If a pharmacy doesn’t stock birth control, and there is a demand for it, another pharmacy down the street will. The government meddling always just seems to make things worse.
Mark, aren’t you assuming there is only one pharmacy in town? The next one may be 100 miles away ... There are uses for birth control pills that have nothing to do with contraception. This is asinine.
Also, as stated above, the pharmacist in question wouldn’t even give the script back or transfer the prescription to another place ...
Do pharmacists have to swear to the Hippocratic Oath, or are they just people who count pills and process orders?
There are uses for birth control pills that have nothing to do with contraception.
Phamacists should not be creating obstacles to obtaining the treatment your doctor has prescribed. Don’t they take an oath or something? It’s non of their business. Fill the RX and shut up. Furthermore, pharmacists are licensed and regulated by the state. There is a different degree of regulation because we are talking about medical treatment. Comparing this to fast food regulation is not apples to apples.
Also, as stated above, the pharmacist in question wouldn’t even give the script back or transfer the prescription to another place ...
That can’t be legal.
There are extents to libertarian principles. It’s simply innapropriate for phamacists to be choosing who to help based on their personal beliefs. Get out of the business if you can’t reconcile what you have to sometimes do as a pharmacist with your morals.
If someone decides to stop filling scripts for Lipitor, I’m expected to start hunting around for one that does? BS! That’s not how the system is suppose to work. They should have their licenses revoked.
Mark, aren’t you assuming there is only one pharmacy in town?
It appears that he is assuming that there is more than one pharmacy in town. Which is actually a pretty safe assumption.
The next one may be 100 miles away.
Extremely unlikely. I travel all over the country and get to dang near everywhere. There are VERY few places that are 100 miles from any other town.
Even if your scenario did actually occur, then people would simply have to drive the 100 miles to the next pharmacy. The pharmacist that refused to fill the prescription would lose business and be fored to close.
This is asinine.
No. What is assinine is trying to legislate what private enterprise can and cannot do.
Also, as stated above, the pharmacist in question wouldn’t even give the script back or transfer the prescription to another place ...
Now that is a problem, albiet a minor one. Simply call your Dr. and have them fill out a new one. I have lost prescriptions before and had to do this. My Dr. even faxed it directly to the pharmacy.
Well, sure. Take it to its logical conclusion. I want to be a stripper, but parading around with my ass cheeks showing in front of strangers is offensive to me. Just cause some pervert wants to see me naked, doesn’t mean I should have to take my clothes off. Should he be required to tip me? Should the club owner be required to retain my substandard services and pay me the going wage?
Mark, aren’t you assuming there is only one pharmacy in town? The next one may be 100 miles away ... There are uses for birth control pills that have nothing to do with contraception. This is asinine.
First off, I’m not saying I agree with a pharmacist’s decision to not stock birth control. I’m saying that it’s his right to make that decision, and I (or the government) should not force him to provide a service that he does not wish to provide.
If you have to drive 100 miles to get a prescription, that sucks, although I would certainly think you could arrange to have refills mailed to you, or order them online, etc. But the “right to not be inconvenienced” is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Also, as stated above, the pharmacist in question wouldn’t even give the script back or transfer the prescription to another place ...
I certainly agree that this is inappropriate. If the pharmacist didn’t want to fill the order, he should have returned it to the patient. I would suspect the patient would probably have some sort of legal action in the case. (Fraud, breach of contract, something like that.)
BTW, welcome back Road Knight, where ya’ been?
What is assinine is trying to legislate what private enterprise can and cannot do.
Well, we already to that to all kinds of business. Now, I support less in general. However, when it comes to the medical industry, a certain level of regulation is prudent.
Pharmacists are already state licensed. I guess the states will have to decide, won’t they?
Now that is a problem, albiet a minor one. Simply call your Dr. and have them fill out a new one. I have lost prescriptions before and had to do this. My Dr. even faxed it directly to the pharmacy.
So, you’re essentially saying that if you try to get it filled at a pharmacy that won’t fill it, it’s ok for them to screw with you? What’s a little inconvenience when you’re trying to get medicine?
Oh, you know me. Here, there, and everywhere (but home). You consumers seem to think you need every little doo-dad and gadget that comes along. So I just keep ‘em moving from one end of the country to the other. :-P
I forgot to add - “Or should I just go find a line of work that fits my values?”
You missed a number of pretty good debates. Lee quit bloggin for about 3 hours, it was cool :) ...
So I just keep ‘em moving from one end of the country to the other.
And some of us still keep passing on the right!
:-)
Argh!
Well, we already to that to all kinds of business.
Tell me about it. The trucking industry is the most heavily regulated industry in America. Only the medical industry comes anywhere close.
Pharmacists are already state licensed. I guess the states will have to decide, won’t they?
Why should government get involved at all? Pharmacists who refuse to stock and sell certain drugs will find themselves losing business. Those that do provide them will gain customers. The free market economy will sort out the problem. No need for legislative action at all.
So, you’re essentially saying that if you try to get it filled at a pharmacy that won’t fill it, it’s ok for them to screw with you?
Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that it was a problem, but I also offered a way around it. I never even implied that the behavior was acceptable.
This topic of pharmacies as it pertains to libertarian thought is really interesting. On one hand you have states’ rights and their regulation of pharmacists. Then you have a desire for less intrusion into private business and private lives. Then you have the desire to not have other people’s morals projected onto you while wanting to steer clear of activity that is inconsistent with those morals.
Whatever will we do?
And some of us still keep passing on the right!
ARGH! My biggest pet peeve is passing on the right. Do you have any idea how blind we are on that side???? Most big truck/4-wherler accidents occur on that side of the truck.
Though, I’ve now got a camera on my right front fender and a monitor on my dash. I can actually see you fairly well.
I never even implied that the behavior was acceptable.
Ok, I misconstrued. It sounded like you thought it wasn’t that big a deal. Your workaround is certainly valid.
Do you have any idea how blind we are on that side????
I knew that one would strike a chord.
Yes, I know very well. My dad drove truck for 25 years.
You know what I’m seeing all to often? Trucks signalling right and swinging left before their turn while some future Darwin Award winner throttles ahead between the truck and the curb. WTF?
You missed a number of pretty good debates. Lee quit bloggin for about 3 hours, it was cool :) ...
Dang! I missed that? Shoot. I’ll need to look in more often.
Well, I’ve been workin on Driving America (batty).
This topic of pharmacies as it pertains to libertarian thought is really interesting.
It is interesting. I’ll agree with you on that. Here’s the way I look at it:
The free market economy will resolve the issue without any government interference. Therefore it is not a “rights” issue at the state or federal level. Remember, we do not have a “right” to medical treatment (non-emergency) or prescription drugs.
This topic of pharmacies as it pertains to libertarian thought is really interesting.
I think that’s true. In addition, there’s the economic angle. If my pharmacy does carry the drug, but I don’t have the money to pay for it, then what should the pharmacist do? If he won’t give me the drug, he’s putting money in front of my health. I’m sure you could argue that it’s a violation of the Hippocratic oath, or whatever oath pharmacists take. (My wife’s cousin is a pharmacist...I’ll have to get her take on this.)
I knew that one would strike a chord.
TWANG!!!!
Yes, I know very well. My dad drove truck for 25 years.
Ahhh, then you know exactly what I’m talking about. What did he drive? Did you ever travel with him?
You know what I’m seeing all to often? Trucks signalling right and swinging left before their turn while some future Darwin Award winner throttles ahead between the truck and the curb. WTF?
Grrrrr. I hate jug-handle turns. Button-hooks are much easier and safer. But, some turns require us to swing wide left. When those occur, I actually swing right, then wide left, before making the turn. That way my trailer swings close to the curb, blocking anyone from squeezing me out.
This strikes me as largely a “I don’t like it. I don’t like it one bit.” issue. I’ll admit I’m having an uncanny emotional reaction to it.
Generally, I think it’s fine to question whether or not state governments should be regulating pharmacies. It’s also fine to defer to the free market.
However, why do we currently regulate pharmacological trade? Is it not to have consistency from pharmacy to pharmacy among other things? So, I think in the current system, there is an expectation that you will get the same drug from store to store.
Lee, though I disagree with your stance on this issue, I agree with your basic sentiment (or what I perceive as your basic sentiment). Terri Schiavo was just not that big a deal, and certainly not worth driving pro-Bush moderates away from the party. Hopefully the GOP will recover before November 2006, but the Schiavo thing has given the DNC a bigger boost than they ever could’ve hoped.
Ahhh, then you know exactly what I’m talking about. What did he drive? Did you ever travel with him?
He drove a feed truck here in Oregon’s Willamette Valley throughout the 70’s. I used to ride with him when I was little.
Then he drove for Freightliner’s transport company off Swan Island in Portland for about 18 years. Three-ways, four-ways, long haul out to the dealerships. I’m sure you’ve seen them piggybacked. There’s no backing them up.
I never got to do the long haul with him. My brother did. Damn near killed each other!
However, why do we currently regulate pharmacological trade? Is it not to have consistency from pharmacy to pharmacy among other things? So, I think in the current system, there is an expectation that you will get the same drug from store to store.
There is no regulation (that I am aware of) requiring pharmacies to carry the same drugs as other pharmacies.
I used to have the most horrible migraines. I had a prescription for a specific drug (I forget the name). There was no generic equivalent. My regular pharmacist didn’t carry it (it wasn’t used very frequently and so she didn’t keep it in stock). She was kind enough to call around and find one that did. So I took my prescription there. I can name other friends and family who have had similar issues.
My pharmacist didn’t carry that drug for economic reasons. But you are imlpying that she should have, just to be consistent with the other pharmacy that did have it in sock. Why? So it could take up shelf space and, eventually, go bad? Just in case someone might need it some day?
The pharmacist has to pay for the drugs they receive. All those drugs you see on the shelves are already paid for by the pharmacist. Consumers buy the drugs and the pharmacist recoups the funds (plus a profit) they have already spent.
He drove a feed truck here in Oregon’s Willamette Valley throughout the 70’s. I used to ride with him when I was little.
Actually, I meant his rig; Peterbilt, Freightliner, Kenworth, Mack, WesternStar, etc. What year? (If you happen to know.)
Then he drove for Freightliner’s transport company off Swan Island in Portland for about 18 years. Three-ways, four-ways, long haul out to the dealerships. I’m sure you’ve seen them piggybacked. There’s no backing them up.
Yep. Seen lots of ‘em. Though you can back ‘em up. Lotsa fun to watch too. ;-)
I never got to do the long haul with him. My brother did. Damn near killed each other!
ROFL.
Not stocking a loser is different than prejudging why a person was prescribed something. Antidepressants can be prescribed for pain, and BCP’s are frequently prescribed for regulating cycles, PMS, etc. There is no reason for a pharmacist to be allowed to question a doctor’s judgement.
I think you guys are missing the main point--that the lesson of the Schiavo case was (allegedly) that we should all have advanced directives, but if these “conscience clause” bills pass, those directives may not be worth the paper they’re written on in some places!
So picture this hypothetical: You’re on vacation in one of those states (if you live in one, and this worries you, it is presumed you’d move if you could), and you have an awful accident that leaves you on a ventilator and brain dead. Your advanced directive clearly states that you want your ogans harvested for donation--so your life will mean something--and then you want to die in peace.
Now, unbeknownst to you (because you are brain dead and didn’t “choose” the hospital or doctors who put you on the ventilator), the doctor and hospital where you are object to honoring your wishes on “religious” or “conscience” grounds. The law in their state protects them. Your family (if they agree with YOU and want to honor your wishes) are know faced with the awesome (and gruesome) task of suing (possibly all the way to the SCOTUS because local law supports the hospital and doctors on this) to get your body moved to another state, because guess what--the hospital and doctor, so resolved are they not to offend their consciences--refuse to sign the transfer papers. They know what your family plans for you when they move the body, and they just won’t allow them to have you. They will keep you alive until you die of “natural causes.” Oh, and by the way, you’re young and relatively healthy so that could be decades from now.
Meanwhile, your insurance company (located back in your home state) has another policy. They don’t cover “extreme measures” for people who have avanced directives stating that they don’t want them. This is their “conscience” driven position. They use it to save money, but also as a precaution against people trying to keep you alive against your wishes (cuz it would be ‘spensive!). SOOOO, in the months and years your family fights for your wishes, the insurance company refuses to pay, so the responsibility falls on your estate. If you left a spouse, he/she suffers, so do your kids (if you have some).
Of course, it’s all OKAY because the doctors and hospital can tuck themselves in bed all cozy and tight at night because their consciences are clear.
This kind of crap makes me want to PUKE. No one individual has a right to do this period. Don’t focus so heavily on the pharmacists, focus on the creeping problem of conscience legislation because it is not a far-fetched fantasy/horror, it is happening. There are bills out there in over a dozen states that propose to allow exactly what I’ve described.
The pharmacist is more real-world to most people. Sure, this issue is as complicated as predicted back in the Karen Anne Quinlan days. We have advanced no further in two decades ...
Not stocking a loser is different than prejudging why a person was prescribed something.
Not stocking is not stocking. Period. The pharmacist can legally choose not to stock a drug because they make no money from it or they have moral issues with the uses of the drug. The reason is immaterial.
The person wanting that drug will simply have to go to a different pharmacist to get it. And when the original pharmacy loses customers and money due to their policy, they will either change their ways or go out of business.
There is no reason for a pharmacist to be allowed to question a doctor’s judgement.
There is no reason for the legislature to dictate morality to anyone, regardless of their profession.
Sure, not stocking. But to compound the problem by not returning the script should be illegal and punishable, plain and simple. Again, there could be any number of reasons a person was prescribed something.
This is near and dear to me because my husband and I went through infertility. If some schmuck would have refused to fill a prescription nad I lost a cycle getting a doctor to resubmit a new one, I may be in jail today. Such a person is not rational :) ...
flogg, actually, we have. Conscience clauses are out there for abortion (no problem, ok fine) and birth control (this is absurd) and some surgeries (sterilization). These laws didn’t exist back then. If you recall, abortion was illegal, but not in all states. Roe v. Wade only determined that abortion laws were unconstitutional (and by the way, they didn’t say they were ALWAYS unconstitutional, that’s the problem with the law--well, one of the problems--they didn’t define the point at which the state has an interest in the child’s life, but they did say at some point they do). Since then, the RTLO has been pushing conscience clauses and it’s only been in the past few years they’ve made major headway. Coincidence? I THINK NOT. Not any more than the fact that Terri Schiavo (who’d been in her vegetative state for the last 15 years) suddenly became the national news story. The powers that be now have made this kind of “progress” more likely.
But to compound the problem by not returning the script should be illegal and punishable, plain and simple.
Agreed. The pharmacist can and should be required to return the script or transfer the prescription. But that is a completely seperate issue to requiring the pharmacist to provide you with medication they choose not to stock (regardless of the reason).
Should my pharmacist be held legally accountable for refusing to carry the medication I needed for my migraines? After all, the migraines caused intense pain and suffering which was relieved by the medication.
You are trying to roll 2 unrelated issues into one. The first issue is the refusal to stock certain drugs. The second is the refusal to return or transfer a prescription.
Here’s the story of what happened to the one pharmacist I referenced:
Pharmacist refuses birth control
I can acknowledge a “business is business” thing. My gripe is the “your not getting this filled for nothing” thing, just because that wanker was the first person I handed the script to. I got the overall impression that stocking wasn’t the issue, it was filling.
My pharmacist didn’t carry that drug for economic reasons. But you are imlpying that she should have
No, I think that is just a factor of the marketplace.
I think the reactions to this issue are based on the reasons behind the actions of the pharmacist. I don’t think people would be up in arms because they didn’t stock a drug for which there was no demand. It’s still a sensitive issue since it concerns people medical needs.
In the end though (pun intended for starfish thread), I agree that the market place will solve the problem. It may just be really hard for people who live in areas with limited access. There are other options like the mail.
I can’t help but draw comparisons to Marriot. They are owned by Mormons but you can still order in room porn (not that I’d know) and alcohol (I would definitely know). They would not be able to compete otherwise. Were the marketplace to shift tastes, that may change in response.
Not giving back the RX should definitely be against the law though. No one has the right to interfere with the legal treatment your doctor has prescribed.
yeah, stocking isn’t the issue. the clauses protect individuals and organizations who refuse procedures and drugs.
Getting one more vote than your opponent is a mandate. Clinton had a mandate. Bush has a mandate now.
Deb: Conscience clauses are a problem, but where do we draw the line?
You have no problem with a conscience cause allowing a Dr. to refuse to perform an abortion. That’s cool. I happen to agree.
Pharmacists are not currently required to carry every drug there is. So if a pharmacists doesn’t carry a drug, you have to go somewhere else. That’s cool too.
But, in your hypothetical situation, what would the hospital have to do in order to prevent your next of kin (and legal gaurdian) from removing you AMA (against medical advice)? I think (but am not positive) that they would have to seek custody of you. This would place the financial burdon on the hospital, not on the family.
Just to be clear - I can understand a Christian doctor not wanting to perform an abortion. BUT - then he or she shouldn’t work in an abortion clinic. Emergency D&Cs;at the hostpital to save a mother’s life really shouldn’t be a problem for anyone who has taken the hippcratic oath. Same thing for a pharmacist. Why get into a profession that will challenge your morals? Why do you think you know why someone has been prescribed a certain medicine? Why should you know or care? If you are not caring towards your customers, you are in the wrong business ..
For everyone who thinks of pharmacies as “private” businesses, you are overlooking the fact that they are licenced and regulated. Pharmacists have an obligation to fill prescriptions and control medications, not decide who gets said medications and what they are going to do with them. That decision has been made by a doctor, who is also licensed and regulated.
People in the medical professions are held to much higher standards of honesty, professionalism, integrity and service. They are obligated to provide medication to anyone that shows up with a valid prescription and the means to pay for it. The pharmacist’s OPINIONS are not relevant.
The drug store does not pick and choose who gets medicine. Attempting to do so, particularly when there are no other options available, is a sure way to end up with a gun in your face.
Why get into a profession that will challenge your morals?
Good question. I guess that’s why we have licensing boards and ethics commitees for certain professions.
For everyone who thinks of pharmacies as “private” businesses, you are overlooking the fact that they are licenced and regulated.
That’s the point I was trying to make.
The pharmacist’s OPINIONS are not relevant.
I agree. Pharmacists should not be second guessing doctors. That’s really the dangerous precedent we could be setting here.
But, the reality is that if you can’t get what you want at one pharmacy, you will go to another. They will then benefit from your business.
The downside will be those in areas where there really isn’t any choice.
Just to be clear - I can understand a Christian doctor not wanting to perform an abortion. BUT - then he or she shouldn’t work in an abortion clinic.
But not all abortions are performed in abortion clinics. Many are performed in regular hospitals and clinics.
Emergency D&Cs;at the hostpital to save a mother’s life really shouldn’t be a problem for anyone who has taken the hippcratic oath.
Agreed. But that is a different issue than having an elected abortion. Polls show that few people, even on the pro-life side, have an issue with a medically necessary abortion. Pretty much only the extreme pro-lifers have a problem with it.
Why get into a profession that will challenge your morals? Why do you think you know why someone has been prescribed a certain medicine? Why should you know or care?
Perhaps because they wanted to make things “right” as they see it. There are numerous reasons why a person would get into a business that challanges their morals.
Heck, most truckers are uncouth potty mouths that use the F-word every other breath. But I’m not like that (though I do swear on occasion). Yet that is the profession I chose. Trust me, it’s a challange, especially over the CB.
NOTE: I am NOT equating trucking with a refusal to provide drugs. Just as an example of someone in a profession that “challanges their morals”.
If you are not caring towards your customers, you are in the wrong business ..
In the pharmacy example, you are assuming that the pharmacist doesn’t care. I think that such a person does care. They just happen to disgree with you on moral or religeous grounds.
RK, it’s a good question, but the way I read the article I linked to, if the hospital refused to transfer a patient, that’s the end of it. I think they have custody of the patient who is incapacitated by default in these cases. I’m not sure of course, but I think so, and you may be right about the bills, but I’m not sure about that either.
Even if they decided to transfer the patient, I imagine there would be a delay or stress for the family. Why should they have to find another location who will TAKE a patient only to unplug them? That may not be as easy as we think either, and I can’t fathom that the hospital would be on the hook for bills if no one else will take the patient in question, would they?
It’s very complicated.
OT, has anyone seen Mickey Rourke lately? WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO HIS FACE??? He’s on O’Reilly now, and whoa, he looks like he fell in a vat of acid and then had his face sandblasted to deal with it.
The downside will be those in areas where there really isn’t any choice.
I can’t imagine what ungodly locale that must be. I’m in the middle of nowhere and have 4 pharmacies in walking distance.
In the pharmacy example, you are assuming that the pharmacist doesn’t care. I think that such a person does care. They just happen to disgree with you on moral or religeous grounds.
But, as I said earlier, they may not really understand why someone is taking a certain drug. Viagra could encourage erections for infertility. Antidepressants are frequently prescribed for chronic pain. This is non medical personnel practicing without a license ...
I can’t imagine what ungodly locale that must be.
Bumfucked Egypt.
For everyone who thinks of pharmacies as “private” businesses, you are overlooking the fact that they are licenced and regulated.
So is trucking. What’s your point?
There is nothing in the licensing or regulations requireing a pharmacist to sell you anything. After some research, there is not currently a law in any of the 50 states requiring a pharmacist to provide every medication your Dr. may prescribe. Nor are there any legal ramifications for their refusal to do so.
From Deb’s article:
Meanwhile, in California, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine introduced a bill that would make it a crime for pharmacists not to fill a prescription for contraceptives.
This bill has only been introduced, not passed. If it does pass, it will be the first of it’s kind.
Pharmacists should not be second guessing doctors. That’s really the dangerous precedent we could be setting here.
How are they 2nd guessing the Dr.? They aren’t saying, “Your Dr. says you have [insert disorder]? Naw, you’re just [insert adjective].”. They are simply refusing to fill a prescription (or stock the medication, for that matter) for a drug whose uses they find objectionable.
But, the reality is that if you can’t get what you want at one pharmacy, you will go to another. They will then benefit from your business.
And this is all the correction that is needed. The free market will eliminate those who fail and reward those who succeed. Legislation for or against conscience clauses is not needed.
What about people who aren’t pharmacists but who work at CVS? What if one of them refused to sell cigarettes to a pregnant woman (same for a liquor store)? I mean, she could be buying them for someone else, or she could mean to smoke them, how would people feel if some liberal do-gooder supported legislation protecting people who did this from losing their jobs.
I can see myself in that position not wanting to sell the cigarettes, but I’d still do it.
Some one has to say it so…
What if the pharmacist refuse to f
Personally I think that Bush is at heart a moderate. I believe that he was sincere in wanting to see Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube put back in. I also think that when push comes to shove, Republicans as a whole will choose fiscal responsibility and a strong defense over the kind of posturing we saw on the part of some on the religious right. Hopefully, the Party as a whole will move in a more libertarian (Small l as opposed to big L)direction now that the whole ordeal is over, and that religious conservatives and moderates can find common ground on issues that matter to the GOP as a whole.