Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on April 25, 2006

Click here to view bill details.

Rep. Lee Gonzales, Did you ever hear of the word "choice?" That is what we all have. If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription based on his moral and religious beliefs, then you have no right to legislate their concience. There are plenty of pharmacies, and people have the "choice" to go to another one that will fill the prescription.

How low we have come when legislators think they have the right to dictate another's morals or principals. There are other drug stores or pharmacists. Would you also require that those who fail to abide by this rule be exempt from receiving public assistance because they were fired, lost their business, jailed or were sued for not dispensing the morning after pills? It is one thing to regulate business for public safety or consumer protection and completely another thing to tell him what he should sell in his business.

If a pharmacist has moral objections to filling contraceptive prescriptions, he/she should get into another occupation. A person asking a pharmacist to fill her/his prescription, should not be denied or made to go to another pharmacy. --FernLE

Choice only counts when you are choosing to destroy a baby.

If it is legal, people should be able to get a prescription filled in any pharmacy in the state. What if the police only decided to enforce those laws they thought were moral? It's shame the world has come to this. What ever happened to tolerance of other people's beliefs?

"What if the police only decided to enforce those laws they thought were moral? " We wouldn't have had Hitler or Saddam. Most folks would have told them to shove it had they had any morals. Matbe we need cops to just enforce good laws. I think i trust some of them more than the money hungry pols that write stupid laws. "What ever happened to tolerance of other people's beliefs?" Exactly. Why don't you tolerate the druggist that won't fill your abortion pill script?

!

First, the comment that proclaims the pharmacist should have a choice is correct. I say when they go home to their wives or husbands, away from a job that pays them, they can choose to go to church, kick a football or go to the movies. If you feel this is wrong you can always find another job. Some areas only have one pharmacy, it is called rural living, (people live in areas outside of the suburban utopias you live in.) If we started to have choices at our professions due to moral, ethical or religious grounds nothing would ever get done, Oh wait look at the school systems, the corectional systems, the economic future of many states, the enron debacle, the increasing numbers of homeless individuals, environmental protection being called wasteful, high gas prices, etc. We just sit back and watch these things happen in terror. Let's have more children born in poverty, and not address that problem. Next, the example about the cops was excellent what happens if we passed a law allowing cops to be conscientious objectors (not uphold the same protection) to those that are morally, ethically, or religiouly different from them. I figure that would be anarchy. It is starting to happen in all health related fields, please see other house bills that would allow healthcare facilities, professionals, and insurance companies to do so. Next, I do not understand how someone came to the conclusion Hitler would not exist. Could it be lunacy? Does this bill include any other objectionable drug, a pharmacist may dispense that feels uncomftable with? I think this is to refuse service to anyone "judged" deviant. "I suppose people are starting to throw the first stone. I am glad they are without sin" Finally, if it is abortion we are talking about, say abortion, if it is the morning after pill, say the morning after pill, the two are not the same, i suggest you read, and get an education before leaping to a spurious conclusion, As for the legislator, I applaud your ability. You seem to be the only one asking for a house bill that is specific enough for consideration. In these times of war, and I say this because it appears we choose to fight, fight, fight, who are we attempting to destroy?

What they do on Wednesday nights, Sunday, Saturday is their business and what a woman does is hers. Maybe a pharmasist with issues should become a minister instead. They welcome preaching and judging there, or so I hear.

so that he can go back to college and get a different job.

should not have to drive to another pharmacy. Incredible!

Thank you, thank you!

Seems like a nobrainer! It should be law! Sad that we have to make it a law.

Superb legislation!

Introduced by Rep. Lee Gonzales on April 25, 2006, to prohibit a pharmacist from refusing to dispense or transfer a prescription based solely on an ethical, moral, or religious belief. A pharmacist would be required to dispense or transfer a prescription despite an ethical, moral, or religious belief if he or she wanted to practice his or her profession in Michigan. Referred to the House Health Policy Committee on April 25, 2006.

What's the holdup? AN ELECTION YEAR?

Or they can get a new job.

already required to dispense dispite personal beliefs? what about the jewish pharmacist that has to dispence porcine based insulin? THAT is definately against his beliefs, but then again, he's not the one TAKING the medication, he's just the one DISPENSING the medication. he has spent years preparing to be in a career that dispenses drugs to other people. that is what he should do.