Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
I was browsing around the feminist blogosphere the other day, and I noticed an interesting item over at Feministing objecting to the recent federal court case that overturned Washington state's law requiring pharmacists to provide emergency contraception.
This is [expletive]. The state had a very compelling reason for the requirement: As we all know, EC gets less effective over time and in rural areas there may not be another pharmacy for miles. And pharmacists who don’t believe in birth control or erroneously think that EC is an abortifacient were free to pass the prescription off to coworker who would fill it. As the Seattle Times wrote in an editorial calling on the state to appeal the ruling, this decision “sends a message that pharmacists’ personal views can take priority over patients’ rights...”
...It’s an upside-down world where pharmacists’ refusal rights supersede patients’ rights to timely care and the conscience of religious institutions trumps the rights of the individuals–religious or not–to access the health care coverage they need.
I personally don't think that such a right, assuming that one exists, necessarily ought to impose obligations on other private entities. The weird thing is that this doesn't seem to bother a lot of people. I have all this time been under the mistaken impression that rights came in the form of government restraint, but now they come in the form of government creating such legally enforceable obligations between citizens. Eventually, everyone will be entitled to everything, and we all be held accountable by the nanny state. For once, thank god for the federal court system.
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
Paul D Lawyer:
You might think “abortionphile” is a bit strong, but there are those who think that abortion is the most important women’s health issue, more important than any and all cancers, heart disease, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s or any other disease. · 4 hours ago
Indeed, the celebrants of "choice" are so enthused about it that I believe Hallmark are missing a business opportunity. They should be marketing greeting cards that sisters can send to a sister on the occasion of her exercising her all important right, standing up to the oppressive patriachy, and sacraficing for the godess Gaia. Perhaps family could also send cards to signify approbation of a wise decision.
Feb '11
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
As I have pointed out before, just wait until some court accepts the argument that "free exercise" in the First Amendment means that health care requires government-sponsored gym memberships.
Oct '10
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
What if the owner of the pharmacy wishes to dispense the drugs in question - are they required to keep the conscientious pharmacist on the payroll, or are they free to hire and fire their employees as they see fit?
Aug '10
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
billy: The left has so manipulated the political vocabulary that arguments for limited government are incomprehensible to the average citizen.
Which was probably the point all along. · 8 hours ago
Manipulating vocabulary is what the Left does best. They've been doing it for 60+ years while commanding the microphones of the major TV networks and the classroom lecterns of virtually every university in the country.
They know that if they control language, they can control anything they want.
Jun '10
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
If a pharmacist can not bring himself in good conscience to dispense medication for whatever reason he should surrender his government issued license and take up some other form of employment.
My health should not depend on someone else's conscience. Or religious beliefs, or prejudices, or any other type of personality quirk. No one should have the power to decide whether I get what treatment I need or not because of their conscience.
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
Robert E. Lee: If a pharmacist can not bring himself in good conscience to dispense medication for whatever reason he should surrender his government issued license and take up some other form of employment.
My health should not depend on someone else's conscience. Or religious beliefs, or prejudices, or any other type of personality quirk. No one should have the power to decide whether I get what treatment I need or not because of their conscience. · 20 minutes ago
Unless you think there is one pharmacist in the world, this makes no sense. Go to another pharmacist if one doesn't provide you with the services you need. Also, if you think your health should not depend on someone's conscience or religious beliefs, are you comfortable with all of those hospitals and doctors who go into their work because of their religious beliefs, shutting down?
May '10
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
What you describe is the logical destination when people begin thinking about 'rights' instead of 'responsibilities'. The Constitution properly addresses rights because it is addressed to the government and it recognizes individuals' rights which may not be infringed. But, if there were a comparable document addressed to the citizens of the republic it would address the responsibilities that they have as good citizens. In this particular instance, a person who does not want the responsibilities of parenthood must take responsibility to either ensure that a contraceptive is in place or they are responsible for avoiding getting into a sexual situation. That's what responsibility looks like in practice. Just do it.
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
Robert E. Lee: If a pharmacist can not bring himself in good conscience to dispense medication for whatever reason he should surrender his government issued license and take up some other form of employment.
My health should not depend on someone else's conscience. Or religious beliefs, or prejudices, or any other type of personality quirk. No one should have the power to decide whether I get what treatment I need or not because of their conscience.
This logic sounds good but is completely untenable. Where do you derive this natural right to buy whatever medicine you want at whatever store you want? If an entire community of Catholics would be happy to patronize a Catholic-run pharmacy, you would seek to ban their voluntary transaction of business because you wouldn't be happy shopping there?
And why stop at medicine? If a balanced diet is an important component for health, why not fine any grocery stores who deign to sell us fatty foods or don't display vegetables prominently enough for your liking? Why should department stores be allowed not to carry running shoes or exercise gear? "Our health can't be left up to shopkeepers' discretion!"
No way.
Apr '11
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
Robert E. Lee: If a pharmacist can not bring himself in good conscience to dispense medication for whatever reason he should surrender his government issued license and take up some other form of employment.
My health should not depend on someone else's conscience. Or religious beliefs, or prejudices, or any other type of personality quirk. No one should have the power to decide whether I get what treatment I need or not because of their conscience. · 5 hours ago
If you classify pregnancy as a disease and plan B as medicine, then you have a case. I believe neither to be the case, so what you are being denied is not medically necessary. Do people have a right to anti-obesity drugs if they elect to eat too much? It's hard to argue that some must provide you with a remedy to a condition you could have avoided or, at the very least, prepared yourself for.
Jun '10
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Unless you think there is one pharmacist in the world, this makes no sense. Go to another pharmacist if one doesn't provide you with the services you need. Also, if you think your health should not depend on someone's conscience or religious beliefs, are you comfortable with all of those hospitals and doctors who go into their work because of their religious beliefs, shutting down? · 8 hours ago
One pharmacist or many, if they require a state license then they should follow the rules. This is not a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" type of operation.
If a doctor or a hospital chooses to shut down because of their religious beliefs, they aren't providing me health care anyway. If they do provide me health care, their religious beliefs are not a problem. It's when they can but refuse to provide care because of their beliefs that I have a problem with.
Jun '10
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
Andrew Quinn This logic sounds good but is completely untenable. Where do you derive this natural right to buy whatever medicine you want at whatever store you want? If an entire community of Catholics would be happy to patronize a Catholic-run pharmacy, you would seek to ban their voluntary transaction of business becauseyou wouldn't be happy shopping there?
And why stop at medicine? ...Our health can't be left up to shopkeepers' discretion!"
No way. · 4 hours ago
Speaking of untenable logic, where does natural rights to shopping come into this? Or my feelings of comfort shopping someplace? If they sell me what I need, I have no problem. It's if the refuse to sell to me because I don't believe as they do that bothers me. I a Muslim refused to sell to a Christian people would be all over this.
"Our health can't be left up to shopkeepers' discretion!" Precisely!
Jun '10
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
I do not classify pregnancy as a disease. Neither do I classified a broken bone as a disease. But both are health issues and the people effected should have a say in their treatment. Not everyone gets pregnant voluntarily. Not everyone gets fat voluntarily. One size does not fit all. Can you honestly say you have prepared yourself for, say debilitating arthritis? Arthritis can certainly effect your exercise habits? Or how about a crippling accident? Ill health is not always a failure of responsibility.
Mar '11
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
Robert E. Lee
Speaking of untenable logic, where does natural rights to shopping come into this? Or my feelings of comfort shopping someplace? If they sell me what I need, I have no problem. It's if the refuse to sell to me because I don't believe as they do that bothers me. I a Muslim refused to sell to a Christian people would be all over this.
"Our health can't be left up to shopkeepers' discretion!" Precisely! · Feb 28 at 2:25pm
You think AQ's logic is untennable? Your analogy is ridiculous. A logical analogy would be closing down a halal butcher shop because it doesn't sell pork chops.
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
Robert E. Lee
If they sell me what I need, I have no problem. It's if the refuse to sell to me because I don't believe as they do that bothers me.
With all due respect, and I mean that, such thinking is totally confused. They are not refusing to sell you anything on account of your beliefs, they are merely consulting their beliefs and judgments – be they religious, moral, aesthetic, or economic – in deciding what they, as private citizens, choose to stock and sell. They are not discriminating against customers, as you allege, any more than an ice cream parlor that does not happen to stock Pistachio is "discriminating" against customers who seek that particular flavor.
Here is, I think, a close parallel: is it in any way unfair or unethical for a Christian couple who owns a bookstore to decide they will not offer pornography for sale? If you agree that they would be within their rights, then you must also side with us and the pharmacists in question. The only difference is whether the product is ink and paper or a cocktail of chemicals; the principle is precisely the same.
Jun '10
Re: Leftists Confused About Rights. Again.
Andrew Quinn
With all due respect, and I mean that, such thinking is totally confused. They are not refusing to sell you anything on account ofyourbeliefs, they are merely consultingtheir beliefs and judgments – be they religious, moral, aesthetic, or economic – in decidingwhat they, as private citizens, choose to stock and sell. They are not discriminating against customers, as you allege, any more than an ice cream parlor that does not happen to stock Pistachio is "discriminating" against customers who seek that particular flavor.
If a pharmacy chooses not to stock an item, that is their choice. If a pharmacist chooses not to dispense an item that is in stock because they don't personally believe in the morality of the product, that is another matter.
I think I'm doing a miserable job of making my concern clear, that another person can make a decision about my life based on their religious views. The tyranny of religion, not God you understand, but man's interpretation of God's will, is frightening. I trust God, I do not trust people. I've watched too many news reports about the actions of "good religious people" to feel safe.