Is this true? Kerry was co-sponser of pharmacist bill?

[Trinity]

Excerp
"On the contrary, congressional Democratic leaders accept the political framework set by the fundamentalists, only protesting that they, too, are “people of faith.” Thus Senator John Kerry, the defeated Democratic presidential candidate, has joined with Republican Senator Rick Santorum, a supporter of the Catholic fascistic Opus Dei group, to introduce legislation to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions on the grounds of their religious beliefs."(SNIP)

from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/repu-a28.shtml


just wondering,


Peace?

Trinity :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

[sandnsea]

1. It's a relgious freedom bill

And adds alot of protections for various religions that the law doesn't allow now. He's been working on it for years. I don't like the pharmacist aspect of it either, but it's a small part of the bill. And at least it requires somebody to be on duty to fill prescriptions, which is more than we have now.

[Jacobin]

21. Nice spin

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. Facts aren't "spin"

It IS a religious freedom bill. It allows non-Christians the right to take a day off work for religious holidays - Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, minority religions whose rights may not have been previously respected.

And read the bill yourself - the pharmacist can ONLY refuse to fill a prescription if there is another pharmacist on hand to fill it. No woman is going to go to the pharmacy and leave without her prescription filled.

Your knee-jerk reaction "Santorum co-sponsored so it must be bad" displays lack of critical thinking. If you look at what the bill allows and what it does not, you'll find that it is not this evil giveaway to fundies who can now refuse prescriptions all over the place.

[Jacobin]

33. Oh, and a real nice boost to the 'right to life' dingbats

who not only want to end the right of a woman to choose, but ALSO to end her right to purchase birth control.

If you don't want to dispense legal medicines, DON"T BECOME A PHARMACIST.

I simply think that by joining with Santorum he is not doing anything to help the party on this birth control issue.

I think its crazy and opportunistic to try to label himself as somehow more friendly to religion"....if he can't figure out that the country is moving AWAY from this claptrap after Terry, then he is doomed again...a fucking political dead ear.

Excuse the rant.

I'm tired of his goddamned sniveling suckling to what he thinks might be popular at a given moment

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. He's been trying to get a religious freedom bill for years

So it's not some spur of the moment pandering to the right to life crazies. Fact is, this bill is pretty much lip service to the fundies- no substance. It gives them "the right" to refuse to administer medicines only if someone else is on hand who will. More importantly, the bill protects the rights of non-Christians who wish to take days off work for religious observance without losing their jobs.

If anything, it's Santorum who had to compromise heavily on this bill, not Kerry. This bill is not a handout to fundies. It does not give them the right to refuse service and turn a woman away without getting her prescription filled. You're right, they shouldn't become pharmacists. But this bill protects the freedom of ALL religious people - fundies, Wiccans, Muslims - and that's more important. Just because fundies are the most annoyingly vocal of relgious minorities doens't mean that bills shouldn't be passed to protect the rights of religious minorities in general. This isn't "pandering", and it's not a "victory" for the crazies.

[blm]

35. Except your perception is based on a false premise. It was 1997 when Kerry

first put up a bill that allowed employees the freedom of observing their religious rites and holidays without fear of losing their jobs. This includes those devout Muslims who pray at sunset, for example.

Kerry PROTECTED a woman's right to birth control in this bill, because it forces pharmacies to have TWO pharmacists available at all times IF one of them refuses to fill a prescription based on their fundamentalist beliefs. It really just makes fundies LESS attractive as employees, because it doubles the payroll for the pharmacy, making it less cost effective to employ a fundamentalist in the first place.

But, then, some people see what they want to see and are willing to distort anything to fit into their preferred storyline against Kerry.

Kerry, as usual, is forging into unpopular territory to come up with a solution.

[MontageOfFreedom]

51. He's absolutely right. Kerry and Howard Dean are good men.

They are not compromising any of the legislation, nor letting Rick Santorum over-write the laws with Opus-Dei garbage.

It requires at least two pharmacists to be present at all times, and it opens it up for free religious indignation. If these requirements were not fulfilled, no one would have ever voted on it!

[sandnsea]

38. Tell it to Barbara Boxer

Her bill does the same damned thing. But because it's the glorious Barbara Boxer, we dare not say a word against that bill. Liberal hypocrisy is just as stomach churning as fristianity.

"Boxer's proposal would require all pharmacies to fill all prescriptions or refer customers to someone who will, despite pharmacists' religious or ethical objections to the nature of the prescription."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/19/MNGO4CB6UJ1.DTL

[MockSwede]

57. NOTHING to do with legal versus illegal, or with religion

refusal to fill does not necessarily have to do with religion.

no society should FORCE a person to act against his/her morals.

any healthcare worker can decline to participate in anything they consider unethical, immoral, against their religion, etc.

nurses that do not want to participate with abortions don't work with the OB during treatment for that patient.

physicians that do not believe in assisted suicide will not administer morphine or order morphine to suppress breathing to induce death.

pharmacists who consider emergency contraception abortion can decline to participate in dispensing.

but the declining pharmacist also has the professional responsibility to refer the patient to another pharmacist or another pharmacy to receive the prescribed care.

so it's not DENIAL of service to the patient, it's declining to participate in that service to that patient.

something I'll always protect as a right of practice as a pharmacist.

BTW. I'm pro choice and pro euthansia and I dispense. You cannot tell me or my fellow professionals that I MUST, just because of my profession, participate in such.

[MockSwede]

56. Pharmacists and ethics

refusal to fill does not necessarily have to do with religion.

any healthcare worker can decline to participate in anything they consider unethical.

nurses that do not want to participate with abortions don't work with the OB for that patient.

physicians that do not believe in assisted suicide will not administer morphine or order morphine to supress breathing to induce death.

pharmacists who consider emergency contraception unethical can decline to participate in dispensing.

but the declining pharmacist also has the professional responsibility to refer the patient to another pharmacist or another pharmacy to receive the prescribed care.

so it's not DENIAL of service to the patient, it's declining to participate in that service to that patient.

something I'll always protect as a right of practice as a pharmacist.

[Mass]

23. The bill says nothing about pharmacies.

Kerry has just given this example in an editorial in the NYTimes to show how it would work. In fact what he described is close to what Lautenberg and Boxer proposed in a bill: insure that prescriptions would be filled while preserving when possible the freedom of religion of people.

I dont like it either, but we have to be clear on what it is in order to avoid the errors of the original article.

Here is the Lautemberg Boxer bill

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.677:

[paineinthearse]

2. Here's how to determine. Thomas 1-2-3

1. http://thomas.loc.gov/
2. Click "bill number". Enter the bill/resolution number. Example: H res 22 (if you do not know the bill number, click on and enter key words.
3. Sponsor and co-sponsors will be listed. If not evident, root around a bit, it's very simple.

[Trinity]

6. Thanks for the link

I've booked it ;-)




Peace?

Trinity :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

[blm]

3. Completely spun the story against Kerry and the bill. The fact is that

Kerry put conditions into the bill that would make it unwise and COSTLY for a pharmacy to hire a fundamentalist who refuses to dispense birth control pills.

It calls for ANOTHER pharmacist to ALWAYS BE ON HAND to fill prescriptions that the fundamentalist refuses to fill.

This bill may sound at first like a cave to fundies, but it really makes them less employable.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. It seems pretty good to me

It does. I agree. Once you read about the actual bill and not what a paper says it's pretty good. Is this the one where other religions get holiday's off too and not just Christians?

[AlmightyTallest]

25. Warning: Snark

Everything Kerry does sucks! Santorum is involved therefore we must kill it even if it's a good thing! < /snark > :nopity:

Seriously it's a touchy subject but being Jewish I know it can be a pain trying to get off Jewish holidays from work, especially if your employer is insensative. I've not really had a problem in the workplace so far but I did encounter it in university.

[loyalsister]

48. EXCEPT

That it implicitly endorses a misogynistic principle.
Everyone knows that women are most likely to experience the results of this Bill. It's extremely insulting to be treated like a child by a Pharmacist. I have been there!
Women have just been legislated against.
Those "women for Kerry stockers are crap!

[Trinity]

4. Thanks everyone - it's more clear now..n/t

Peace?



Trinity :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

[Caution]

5. This part of the bill requires that pharmacies fill prescriptions

If a pharmacist doesn't want to fill a prescription over "moral" objections, that pharmacist must find another pharmacist to fill the prescription. If there isn't another available, regardless of moral objections, the prescription must be filled.

I have no objection whatsoever to this and cannot for the life of me think of any reason anyone would find this objectionable.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. Only thing I don't get

is why the hell would you be a pharmacists if you knew you would have to give out medicine that was "against your moral values"? Why would you go through all that schooling for that? I think that reasoning is bullshit.

[Adelante]

10. They should lose their licences

for refusing to do their jobs.

[suigeneris]

15. That is correctamundo. It should be a requirement to

be licensed that they dispense a legally made prescription from doctor to patient without delay and without invasion of the patient's privacy. It is none of their business and refusal should get them bounced from practice.

[MockSwede]

59. Look up your BOP rules and requirements for pharmacists

no society should FORCE a person to act against his/her morals, just because of profession.

any healthcare worker can decline to participate in anything they consider unethical, immoral, against their religion, etc.

nurses that do not want to participate with abortions don't work with the OB during treatment for that patient.

physicians that do not believe in assisted suicide will not administer morphine or order morphine to suppress breathing to induce death.

pharmacists who consider emergency contraception abortion can decline to participate in dispensing.

but the declining pharmacist also has the professional responsibility to refer the patient to another pharmacist or another pharmacy to receive the prescribed care.

so it's not DENIAL of service to the patient, it's declining to participate in that service to that patient.

something I'll always protect as a right of practice as a pharmacist.

BTW. I'm pro choice and pro euthanasia and I dispense. You cannot tell me or my fellow professionals that I MUST, just because of my profession, participate in such.

If you do - maybe you want me to be completely unethical/illegal/immoral in everything I do as a pharmacist?! Or is it okay, just sometimes, when YOU want it?

I've got junkies coming into my pharmacy every day looking to fill prescriptions for substances of abuse. Most of these are 'legal' medications written by an unsuspecting prescriber for a drug abuser. I suppose you want those filled without delay and without invasion, too. That's about 60% of the US drug abuse problem!

I refuse to fill prescriptions all that time because there are problems with patient interactions or dose or other medications or incomplete information, etc, a laundry list of problems. Most get resolved with a fax or telephone call. Some will not be filled.

Just as no prescriber can REQUIRE that I 'just fill it', neither can any patient. Whether or not a patient appreciates it, I have a corresponding duty of due diligence to apply my professional knowledge to every prescription from every patient I treat. That includes deciding NOT to dispense. Dispensing prescriptions is not a rubber stamp of what a prescriber does. This duty is REQUIRED by EVERY Board of Pharmacy in the US.

[sendero]

13. They weren't against dispensing..

... contraceptive drugs until someone told them to be. These kinds of people are not real big on thinking for themselves.

[AlmightyTallest]

26. I think that it's

just people sensing the change in tide. The extremem right has become so "mainstream" now (even if it's not really representative of the majority) that those who would normally have just shelved their beliefs and done their jobs are becoming emboldened.

[MockSwede]

58. Don't HAVE to give out medication

shovel your own BS

It's not the medicine that is moral or immoral - it's the use or the reason for using it that is or isn't.

refusal to fill does not necessarily have to do with religion.

no society should FORCE a person to act against his/her morals, just because of profession.

any healthcare worker can decline to participate in anything they consider unethical, immoral, against their religion, etc.

nurses that do not want to participate with abortions don't work with the OB during treatment for that patient.

physicians that do not believe in assisted suicide will not administer morphine or order morphine to suppress breathing to induce death.

pharmacists who consider emergency contraception abortion can decline to participate in dispensing.

but the declining pharmacist also has the professional responsibility to refer the patient to another pharmacist or another pharmacy to receive the prescribed care.

so it's not DENIAL of service to the patient, it's declining to participate in that service to that patient.

something I'll always protect as a right of practice as a pharmacist.

BTW. I'm pro choice and pro euthansia and I dispense. You cannot tell me or my fellow professionals that I MUST, just because of my profession, participate in such.

If you do - maybe you want me to be completely unethical in everything I do as a pharmacist?! Or is it okay, just sometimes, when YOU want it?

[ET Awful]

7. The legislation, as written, also protects people such

as the Muslims who fired by companies for demanding breaks for evening prayers, etc.

There is a lot of incorrect spin put on the bill, it's not the great evil they try to portray it as.

[paineinthearse]

11. Enough speculation. Who can give me the bill number or a few key words?

I'll do the Thomas look-up.

[Mass]

14. Here

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109pMunTE::

Not a word about pharmacies, but Santorum and Kerry had an editorial in the NYTimes a few weeks ago explaining that this law would allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription as long as another one is on duty to do so.

[paineinthearse]

18. bad link

[Mass]

20. Hope this one works

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.677:

[Mass]

12. In fact this part of the bill is the same as Boxer and Lautemberg.

The bill is just broader.

[WI_DEM]

16. Re: the pharmachist aspect of this bill

I say if you get into that line of work you MUST put aside your personal feelings and fill any LEGAL drug that a DOCTOR prescribes. If you cannot do that--get out of the business.

[laugle]

17. You are sooooooo right, what's next

When you buy some twinkies or cake and the grocery checker see's that you are a big FAT person, can they too refuse to sell them to you. What a bunch of crap!!

[blm]

19. That would be ideal, but, I do like the idea of making fundies less likely

to be employed. Having to have two pharmacists available at all times because one of them is a fundamentalist just is not cost effective for most pharmacies.

What's a fascist to do? heheh

[Ysolde]

22. I agree...

but there's more going on than just pharmacists not dispensing prescriptions. I had e-mailed the chain pharmacies in my local community and this is the only response I received:

Wal-Mart does not carry emergency contraceptives. Our pharmacists may decline to fill a prescription based on personal convictions. However, they must find another pharmacist, either at Wal-Mart or another pharmacy, who can assist you by filling your prescription.

I would REALLY like the new provision that requires them to have someone on hand to fill the prescription (and make them carry emergency contraceptive?). That'll hurt the bottom line if they have Fundies on staff.

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. What about physicians and abortions?

There are doctors who refuse to perform abortions, and abortions are definitely within a physician's 'line of work'. Should those doctors find another line of work, too?

[Beaverhausen]

28. yes. If they refuse to perform a legal medical procedure they should

get out of the profession.

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. OK.

Just wanted to make sure your line of argument is consistent.

[Cuban_Liberal]

30. What about hospitals that won't allow abortions?

Should we close them, too?

[Beaverhausen]

31. Yes

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. OK.

We can scratch about 30% of the available hospital beds in the country, IIRC.

[arikara]

36. If it started affecting their bottom line

they'd start doing abortions in a hurry. Money talks bigger than fetuses with the shareholders. They're just getting away with it because they've got everyone so buffaloed with their so called "life" bullshit.

[Cuban_Liberal]

37. Most hospitals are not-for-profit.

What it would actually do is force many of them to close, especially in rural America.

[bread_and_roses]

50. If those hospitals accept $1 of Federal, State, or Local tax money

then they should not be allowed to deny a perfectly legal procedure for which they have staff and facilities.

If they want to abide by their religious beliefs, fine by me - but only if they support themselves.

[sandnsea]

41. If it's medically necessary

That's the thing. The pharmacist has no way to know what the purpose of a prescription is for. It isn't in their job description to know.

An OB/GYN is in the line of work to care for women's reproductive health. If an abortion is needed, ANY doctor ought to know how to do them and be required to do them. That isn't the case anymore. We truly do have doctors who do not know how to do abortions, at all. They can opt out of that training due to "religious objections".

Women are going to start dying. It's only a matter of time.

[sandnsea]

39. I agree

Doesn't change the fact that the article in the OP is a Kerry bashing article. They could have just as easily picked the Boxer-Lautenberg Bill, but that would have meant saying something against the Queen B. Can't have that.

[Patchuli]

42. Why are you so angry at Boxer?

She stood up for my and your rights after the Fraud Election of 2004 when other senators sat there, mouths closed. I read the link you provided and it sounded like a good idea to me. Did I miss something?

Are you just jealous that she's not your Senator? *wink wink*

[sandnsea]

43. I'm not

I'd just like to see a little more intellectual honesty around here.

[StephanieMarie]

40. "Activist Pharmacists" -- the Dems need to JUMP on this NOW

[iamjoy]

44. Off Topic A Little...

Has anyone ever heard of a pharmacist refusing to fill a Viagra prescription?

[beaconess]

45. Or sell condoms?

[TayTay]

46. Don't laugh. The religious right has their eye on this stuff as well

They are picking their battles one at a time. They well could start to protest selling any other medication or device that interferes with conception. They don't believe in it. They are just going after one thing at a time.

Al Franken had a discussion today about a new vaccine that is coming on the market that could prevent cervical cancer in women. Some Rethug spokesmen actaully had bad things to say about it. Their fear is that if you prevent cervical cancer it will give girls an excuse to have pre-marital sex. Can you imagine the mindset that says I won't give a possible vaccine against cancer because it might lead to a sexual behaviour I don't agree with?

[sandnsea]

47. Sadly, I know you aren't joking

:cry:

[bread_and_roses]

49. So, say you're poor. You walk half a mile, toddler in tow

to your closest CVS or whatever, to fill your birth control prescription. The pharmacists on refuses, and tells you that one who will fill it will be coming on duty in a few hours. What do you want to bet that would be considered fullfilling the letter of the law? Meanwhile, you have to walk home, then drag your toddler out again a few hours later if you're going to get your prescription.

Or the same thing happens when you, a poor woman relying on a neighbor for a ride has managed to get to the only pharmacy near you, which happens to be twenty miles away from your home - not an unlikely scenario in rural areas. You have to leave to get your ride home, or be stranded. How will you get back?

IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PHARAMICISTS ROLE TO DETERMINE WHO GETS WHICH MEDICATIONS. That is practicing medicine, and they should lose their liscences for it. The fact that it is "birth control" medication makes no difference at all.

[iamjoy]

52. And How Do They Know

That the woman isn't taking the birth control pill for reasons other than the "obvious."

(IANAD) The pill can be used to help with endometriosis (it is an alternative to hysterectomy in severe cases) and hormone fluctuations which can make lives miserable for the women (and those close to them). But I think it can also be used as hormone replacement therapy, although HRT has become controversial in recent years for reasons other than religious.

And how does the pharmacist know that a pregnancy wouldn't place this woman's health or even life in danger? If she's married is the pharmacist suggesting she refuse to have intercourse with her husband? If so, is that grounds for the husband to divorce her? Or should she just risk her life?

What if it was a hospital pharmacist and he sees that a woman came in for an abortion, could he refuse to fill her prescription orders? If she's in pain, too bad. If she is at risk for infection, too bad. In some hospitals, during the overnight hours, it is possible there is only one pharmacist on duty. Of course, most abortions probably are performed in clinics, not hospitals. But I think you get my point.

Let's go a step further. Say a Jehovah's Witness was a phramacist and refused to fill a prescription for a blood derivative. Or a Jewish pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for a product derived from a pig (even if it is, say, insulin).

I respect what some Democrats are trying to do with this. They are trying to find a compromise that will protect women and be palatable to the extremists. But I'm not sure I like it. Not only are they trying to appease tyrants, but I think they are missing the point. A pharmacist is not a doctor and should not be making decisions that could affect a woman's health. If a pharmacist thinks an order would put a customer's health in jeopardy (as in, doctor made an error or was unaware of an interaction), the pharmacist should call the doctor and consult, or advise the customer (not lecture on morals, but advise of interactions, etc)

[rodeodance]

53. they are talking of the issure on c-span 2 right now

[rodeodance]

54. see this thread if interested

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1754601

[Mass]

55. No the bill requires two pharmacists to be present at all time.

ACtually Boxer's bill does, as Kerry's bill does not say a word concerning pharmacists.

[blm]

60. A pharmacist who DOES fill it has to be there at all times. This makes

the fundie pharmacist LESS employable, since hiring a fundie is not very cost effective when you have to pay TWO pharmacists to do the job of one.

[bread_and_roses]

61. Call me cynical, I don't believe that would happen

My guess is that "on call" would be considered "there." And that would pose serious hardships for women.

[blm]

62. It would after the first lawsuit.

.