[-]
BBB Shoutbox (View Full Shoutbox)
Shout: -
Loading...
Current time: Sep 05, 2008, 02:43 PM Hello there, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Advertise here
User(s) viewing this thread:  1 Guest(s)

Post Reply  Post Thread 
Is state regulation targeting religious believers?
Author Message
BYS
Senior Board Member
***


Posts: 314
Group: Registered
Joined: May 2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: Positive Reputation
Post: #1
Is state regulation targeting religious believers?

Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 7/16/2008 10:30:00 AM

Pro-life pharmacists in Washington are continuing their fight against a state regulation that would force them to provide medication that could kill an unborn child.

The Washington Board of Pharmacy passed a regulation in 2005 requiring pharmacists to stock and dispense Plan B, commonly referred to as the "morning-after" pill. But Erik Stanley, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, says the regulation is morally and constitutionally wrong. He argues that the regulation trumps a pharmacist's right to conscientiously object what he or she believes is the taking of a human life.

"The right to conscientiously object to the taking of human life is deeply rooted in our nation's history and laws -- and the 'morning-after' pill...can unnaturally and deliberately kill innocent human life," Stanley contends.

The attorney argued against the regulations last week before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He believes those who authored the rules were targeting religious believers who oppose abortion.

"...[G]overnment should not force pro-life pharmacists or any other healthcare providers to violate their religious beliefs simply to appease someone's political agenda -- and that's exactly what's happening in this case," he continues. "What we were able to argue is that no one should be forced to choose between keeping their job and keeping their faith. [W]e believe that the court accepted those arguments very well," says Stanley.

He says requiring pro-life pharmacists to dispense an abortion-causing drug is no less unconstitutional than requiring a Jewish delicatessen owner to sell pork.


Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Hebrews 12:14
Jul 16, 2008 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bob Loblaw
Board Member
**


Posts: 129
Group: Registered
Joined: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: Positive Reputation
Post: #2
RE: Is state regulation targeting religious believers?

Those that are against Plan B for the reason that it 'unnaturally and deliberately kills' innocent life needs to educate themselves on the Plan B and Oral contraceptives in general.

What Plan B Emergency contraceptives do is prevent ovulation and fertilization. But guess what, Oral contraceptives do the same thing. Plan B is primarily used in cases of unprotected sex if a condom breaks or if a woman realizes that she missed more than two pills in a month of her regular contraception, or if woman is raped. Anyone who is so against abortion that they wouldn't allow it even in cases of rape should be ashamed of themselves if they also advocate stopping the availability of this drug. It is simply a higher dosage of the same hormones in Oral contraceptives. It does not cause an abortion, and it is taken after pregnancy has occurred, it does not affect the pregnancy.

A little education, BYS, will go a long way.

The senior counsel of the Alliance Defense, Erik Stanley, is either very ignorant about contraceptives and was simply confusing Plan B with RU-486, or he has an agenda to keep women from being able to use any contraception at all, whatsoever, and he is starting with Plan B.

Pharmacists SHOULD be required to dispence Plan B. It does not go against their religious beliefs, it is not an abortificant. If a pharmacist doesn't realize that, then he/she probably shouldn't be a pharmacist to begin with.

In addition, how could a pharmacist live with themselves if a woman was attacked and raped, and tried to get Plan B but the ignorant pharmacist wouldn't dispense it, and then the woman ends up pregnant. A pregnancy that could have been prevented. The pharmacist would have ended up contributing to a violent crime.


Bob Loblaw, proud to be a member of The Baytown Bulletin Board since Jun 2008.
Jul 16, 2008 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply  Post Thread 

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump:

 Quick Theme: