Comments about ‘Protecting rights of conscience’

Here is where Ms. Smith is wrong. A pharmacy has a significant public service role, and pharmacists exist to dispense under the orders and directions of physicians. A pharmacist can dispense information as well, but cannot override the directions of a doctor. If a person can't perform this basic duty, they should not be a pharmacists. Where would it end? A pharmacist making "conscience" decisions or imposing their own religious tests on virtually anything they dispense? It would be madness and chaos. If you go into the business, then follow the orders of the doctor. Otherwise, go do something else.

I have to honestly wonder if Ms. Smith would apply her principle to issues with which she disagrees. I honestly doubt it. My observation is that her views are that the religious institution trumps the individual belief, and a conservative belief will trump an alternative belief.

Doesn't adding religion to any argument make it better? No.

One of the most diabolical processes has been put into place when the government FORCES doctors and pharmacists to KILL embryos. Doctors take an oath that essentially says, "First, do no harm". Pharmacists provide medication to heal. Now the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, under the HCA, is going to FORCE doctors to take life and pharmacists to provide pills that destroy newly conceived life. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is going to force establishments of religion to disregard their own religious doctrine and provide birth control to their members who work at those establishments of religion.

How many "free thinkers" believe that man has the right to take the life of an unborn baby?

How many "free thinker" believe that man has the right to FORCE another man to take that life?

Are we all so young to have forgotten the atrocities committed by the Nazi's in the name of "science" and in the name of "country"? How many were hanged for forcing others? How many? Now, our own government is following that path, demanding that people of honor change their religious doctrines, that doctors kill the most innocent among us and that pharmacists hand out medication that kills the embryo?

This was a very good column and I hope Ms Smith continues to write for DN. It's scary what happens when you get on the wrong side of Big Abortion. Look what happened to the Komen foundation this week when the goons from "Planned Infanticide" beat them into ideological submission.
It's true that the whole "celebrate diversity" crowd has zero tolerance for diversity of opinion.

Business is the child of society and only exists for the purpose of serving the needs of the society wherein it exists. A business operation by a private person or group may own all itâs assets of every kind, but it does not own the business. A business operation may exist only under the permission and rules of the society as enforced by societyâs government.

The Constitution protects the rights of religious people with regard to religion. When a person, church or religion chooses to operate a commercial business operation, they loose the protection granted by the first amendment. When a religion steps out of itâs religious role, it may not have exemption from the laws of the land.

If the government agency, that is charged with the issuance of business licenses for that particular society, makes rules that regulate and control business, they may do so. A business is not a person.

Every day I see the war that religion is waging against the non-religious. I think that it is only logical that the non-religious would fight back. Perhaps a truce would help both sides.

To: Mike Richards | 9:37 a.m.

You have apparently been getting your information from wrong sources.

Doctors and pharmasists are not being forced to kill. They are not being forced to take the life of an "unborn baby" (a misnomer since a fetus becomes a baby at birth). They are being required to perform their job, which is to provide legal medication to a person who wishes to use it to keep pregnancy from happening. For the most part, PlanB keeps conception from happening. If a pregnancy has already started, the PlanB will have no effect. If there has been conception but not implantation (implantation being when pregnancy starts), then the medication will do the same thing "Mother Nature" does for 33%-50% of all conceptions -- keep pregnancy from starting. That is not "killing" anything.

The federal government is not forcing any house of worship (what you call "establishments of religion") to provide contraception. Hospitals, charities, etc., are not houses of worship, and no more available for First Amendment protection than any other business. Regulations only require comprehensive insurance be made available. Employees can use whatever insurance they wish. Nothing makes them use contraception.

Those are the facts.

Esquire | 8:53 a.m. Feb. 5, 2012

read the story. pharmacist exlude certain medications all the time if they do not see the economic benefit to their business.
So you can refuse to sell a medication for economic reasons, but not religous?
does not seem right to me.
where does it stop?
can the government force somone to sell alcohol, tobacco, adult videos, guns, ect?
If a pharmacy does not want to sell something, then they should not be forced to do so.
do we really want a world of doctors, dentist, pharmacist, with no moral convictions, or standards?

@ VIDAR, you say nothing to dissuade me. Your comparisons are not equivalent. So put us a list of things you won't dispense on the front window. Willing to do that?

@red state pride

yo do realize there is a not so fine line between opinion and action, right?

May a firefighter who personally objects to abortion refuse to respond to a fire alarm at a pharmacy that stocks "Plan B?"

May a law enforcement officer who personally objects to birth control refuse to investigate a burglary or vandalism at drug stores that sell contraceptives?

This is beyond silly.

Pharmacies and pharmacists are licensed - and as such they are expected to fill prescriptions.

This ridiculous business of "Oh woe is me, expecting me to be humane, honest and professional is offensive to my religious beliefs" has got to stop.

Furry,

Please read what you wrote one more time.

You tell us that a "fetus" becomes a baby at birth. I said "unborn baby". The legal system puts severe penalties in place if a mother and "unborn baby" are killed. The courts hold the convicted criminal accountable for TWO deaths. Viability is not part of the issue. NO baby, outside the womb, can survive without help for YEARS. It cannot feed itself. It cannot clean itself. It cannot shelter itself. It depends on others, not just while it is in the womb, but after it is "born".

You ignore the fact that when the sperm and egg unite, the cells will continue to divide until a baby is produce unless "something" happens. Once that process starts, life is on its way. Aborting that life, by the use of mechanical or medicinal means STOPS the natural progression that started at conception.

The Catholic Church is "an establishment" of religion. The government has directed the Catholic Church to put aside its religious doctrine and to provide birth control to people working for the Catholic Church. You used the words "house of worship". I used the words "an establishment of religion".

If your conscience says that you oppose the drugs, then for heaven's sake DON'T USE THEM. It really is that simple. You don't have the right to make the choice for someone else and you aren't their conscience either.

Plan B is not classified as an abortifacient. It works one of 3 ways: preventing the release of an egg from the ovary, preventing fertilization from a sperm and preventing implantation from taking place. It will not terminate an existing pregnancy, which is the definition of abortion.

This is an interesting case.
On the one hand, should store owners be required to stock specific items?
On the other hand, there are numerous ways a conscience clause could be invoked, so under what circumstances should it not be allowed?

@Mike Richards;

The Catholic Church is NOT being required to provide "birth control", they're being required to provide comprehensive insurance to their employees. It is the employee's choice to use or not use birth control.

MikeRichards

Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer
insurance that covers contraception.

No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception:  For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to prescribe contraception.

 No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover.  Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible.  

Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy:  Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy.

Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions.  Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.

Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception.

Ranchhand,

Using your logic, the Jews were only taking showers. It was their choice. The guns were just symbols.

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Churchs constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence."

The 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The government is using force against an establishment of religion.

Congress can pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion. If Congress is forbidden to pass those laws, the President cannot enforce a non-existing law unless he legislates. He is forbidden to legislate: Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

-----

1. Congress has passed legislation respecting "an establishment of religion" (the Catholic Church).

2. The President is either (A) enforcing a law that is clearly unconstitutional because it directs the doctrine of the Catholic Church or (B) he is creating legislation which also unconstitutional.

MR, "The legal system puts severe penalties in place if a mother and "unborn baby" are killed. The courts hold the convicted criminal accountable for TWO deaths." Depends on where you live. "The legal system" does not hold this. Something like 38 states have fetal injury laws and about 20 have laws that define life as any state of gestation. So there's far and away no agreement on this principle.

If you want to get semantic about the principle and define viability as not exsisting until the child can go out and get a job to support itself, then I suppose you also feel that injury to an unborn child would include actions such as smoking, drinking alcohol, not eating properly, not getting adequate rest etc. etc.

Here let me help you out with this a little..we could solve a lot of this conversation if there just weren't so many prenancies, and there wouldn't be so many pregnancies if women weren't..let's say available..so let's just require that women cover themselves from head to foot with just enough exsposure to see and breath..oh wait we all ready have that..what's it called??

pragmatistferlife | 8:23 a.m.

What an absolute shame that those who you tell us are undeserving of life because "(YOU) could solve a lot of this conversation if there just weren't so many prenancies,", don't have a voice to tell YOU what they think about YOUR proposal; but, isn't that always the way it is? Don't the liberals tell the rest of us what we MUST do, how we MUST think, whose lives we should end?

We have a Constitution so that people who direct an establishment of religion to change their doctrine under the force of Government will NOT have a voice to do that, so that people who abort the pure and the innocent will not also be able to end the life of the aged or the feeble.

The clock is ticking. At some point, YOU will be "aged". Think carefully about putting laws into effect that tell doctors what they MUST do. Think carefully about telling pharmacists what drugs they must provide. YOU may be put under the care of a doctor who gets his "marching orders" from Washington.

Blue: What truly has to stop is people like you telling people like me how I have to live my life. What is wrong with a pharmacist choosing his own path in his pursuit of happiness? Why does it have to be someone else's path?

The decision of this pharmacist is not creating a hardship on anyone. They can just stroll down to the next corner and get exactly what they want. Nobody is going without. The article even points out that Planned Parenthood was sending people specifically to this pharmacy to try to make a case to eliminate their right of conscience. They could have gone elsewhere but Planned Parenthood, like many posters on this string, cannot stand that someone might make a different choice in life.

Any why not? Because they are trying to get universal acceptance for their philosophies and they know they cannot do it by persuasion so they turn to force.

That is tyranny of the worst kind. Is that what you support?

I hope Ms. Smith will write with equal conviction and passion about the many, many people whose religious faith and consciences guide them to the conclusion that same sex couples should marry, but are denied this opportunity by the coercive power of government.