Social and Civil Liberty Issues

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 667 (Ban pharmacist “conscientious objector” option )

gypsy — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:07:04 GMT

FreeSpeaker:
Refusal to dispense legal and legally prescribed medications properly should result in revocation of that license.

I agree with that statement entirely, and support passage of this bill. Pharmacist dispense legally prescriped drugs, not moral judgement.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 667 (Ban pharmacist “conscientious objector” option )

FreeSpeaker — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:15:20 GMT

A license to dispense legal medication legally prescribed by doctors is not and should never be a license to impose one's personal beliefs (religious or other) on pharmacy customers. It should be remembered that only licensed pharmacists who have voluntarily chosen their profession may dispense prescribed medications. Refusal to dispense legal and legally prescribed medications properly should result in revocation of that license.

This bill represents sound public policy even though it stops short of requiring license revocation for refusal to dispense on moral-ethical-religious grounds. (The proposal does make revocation a possibility, though.) Importantly, it leaves wiggle room for pharmacists to privately devise workarounds that allow for individual pharmacists to exercise their individual consciences while ensuring the public is properly served by the filling of all legal prescriptions.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 667 (Ban pharmacist “conscientious objector” option )

changeagent — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:05:34 GMT

FreeSpeaker:
In this case, pharmacists are licensed by the state to dispense medication legally prescribed by doctors.

So I guess that means a license from the state gives them the right to force you to do their will, regardless of your moral objections. One more reason government licensing sucks.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 667 (Ban pharmacist “conscientious objector” option )

FreeSpeaker — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:41:56 GMT

This bill should pass.

One’s religion, to the extent it affects other people, should be practiced in private. When the practice of one’s religion starts to affect the interests of other people, the government rightly should step in and referee.

In this case, pharmacists are licensed by the state to dispense medication legally prescribed by doctors. They are not licensed to impose their personal religious belief on others by denying access to legal medication.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 667 (Ban pharmacist “conscientious objector” option )

jmd364 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:49:31 GMT

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.

I guess this means that the First Amendment applies to the State of Michigan too! Nice try.

2009 Senate Bill 667 (Ban pharmacist “conscientious objector” option )

admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the Senate on June 25, 2009

Click here to view bill details.