Comments about ‘Judge says Wash. can't make pharmacies sell contraceptives’

That was a very good legal decision.

That's it. Another loose cannon, non-elected activist Judge over-riding the will of the people. Who needs this branch of government! (end of sarcasm)

We don't see all these older, male legislators creating legislation to regulate any part of male reproduction. I am generally opposed to abortion, but in the case of the mother's health, such as the rape of a young girl, do we really want to make these children, who are still growing, carry a pregnancy to term? What about women, who become pregnant, for whom a pregnancy is life threatening? I guess that's just a sacrifice that these men are willing to make. I thought that conservatives were against government getting between patients and their doctors.

Washington state pharmacies are going to find out that pharmacies can't make people patronise their business, as opposed to another which is not caught up in the religious battle to bring us back to the 18th century.

With all these stories lately, it looks like we might slowly be entering the freeway towards a Theocracy.

Next thing we know it meat will no longer be sold because it is against someone's religious dictates. I guess a pharmacist could also deny medication to someone suffering from STDs or other diseases that he or she believes the person deserves as a curse from God.

This is government way overstepping their bounds, again. If a business does not serve its customers, the customers will take their business somewhere else. It isn't the state of Washington's business to determine what a pharmacy must carry.

Well, Oregon and Washington both have assisted suicide laws on the books. What's next, trying to require that all pharmacies carry hemlock? Way to go, judge. Another blow against fascism!

@SME

Actually, the article mentions that it is part of the government's responsibility to assure that, or a government entity is legally allowed to regulate that, certain medications are made easily available to the public. What happens when an important drug isn't available to an entire town because the pharmacies don't want the hassle of carrying it or believe in it's use?

the complaints against this ruling are pitiful. there are plenty of pharmacists willing to dispense whatever that this will have no impact upon the customers. Just go to a different pharmacy if you can't find what you want.

One good judge.
The judges original decision should have been upheld. But most of our judges are completely wrong headed and out of line. They are in cahoots with governments that want to rule over every aspect of our lives. It is very scary.

It is absolutely mind blowing that this was ever in court. A business owner has a right to decide what to sell and what not to sell based on conscience and/or market demand.
This individual right should outweigh any agenda or program of the collective.

What Midwest Mom and Mr. Jarvis don't understand is that it is a FACT of history that when individual rights are subordinated to the will of a collective then bad things happen.

Collectivism is the evil that allowed millions to be killed under Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao.
While i do not believe we are at that level yet or that we will necessarily ever be at that extreme ... Every step we take towards collectivism erodes our liberties.

Make no mistake, this is not about access to medicine, this is about liberty! Washington State is trying to remove liberty.

While I disagree with Hutterite's beliefs, at least he understands that if the market wants these drugs then there will be someone willing to supply it. There is no need to destroy personal liberty over this issue.

I'm saddened that so many in this nation wish to force others to do their will instead of allowing people to follow the dictates of their own consciences.
These destroyers of liberty then point at the real victims and claim that they are the ones who are trying to force others. It is upside down thinking.

Thatssoutah,

What happens? Sounds to me like the perfect opportunity for someone to open a new pharmacy and meet the demand. Isn't it wonderful how that works?

@ ThatsSoUtah

It is exactly my point that it is not government's job to determine availability of drugs.

If the market wants a drug they will find a way to get it. They always do. Heck ... Crack is illegal and people still get it.

What happens when a small town drug store is required to carry some very expensive drug that nobody in town needs or wants and every year that drug store has to throw away the expired container of this drug and buy another. What a waste and burden on the business owner. If it goes too far it could even run the pharmacy out of business and then the town has no pharmacy.

Again, persons have the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose... companies do not. Next thing you know businesses in the South will be having "religious" objections to serving black people. That's the road this leads down folks... America does not need to be stepping backwards.

For several reasons the politicians sold the American people a bill of goods which basically promised we could have government by the people, of the people and for the people. No sooner had they put ink to paper, the commercial business tyrants started to hedge on their promises.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the new government was an exemption of a type of commercial business called religion. Regardless of the reasons for religion, in practice, in operation, in organization and every other outward appearance, it is a business operation.

The first amendment seemingly was supposed to give rights and freedoms to individuals.

Today, the seemingly main purpose of the amendment is interpreted to give unlimited power over individuals by religion.

Normal business is a necessary evil required to support the needs and wants of the people in the society, and society must sometimes coddle and favor business operations to get the best service.

But, the government of the society has all the authority and power to regulate business operations as to the product, the quality, and the desires of the people. With the Constitutional exception of religion.

Religion would like to have unlimited power and freedom to operate as it pleases. History and some places in the world today indicates that religion in complete control often does very bad things to people in the name of good.

America or any other nation does not allow citizens to be exempt from the law because of personal convictions. A person may believe he can drive 90 miles per hour but if the posted speed limit is 50, he is breaking the law and must suffer the consequences of punishment if caught.

Do citizens have the right to purchase legal goods? Yes.
Does the shopkeep have the right to refuse to sell a certain product. Yes.
Does either right overrule the other? No.
Should either of their rights be taken away? No.

It would seem that citizens have the right to purchase legal goods wherever they are offered. They do not, however, have the right to force a given individual to offer a certain product. Even store owners have rights. If a store does not sell something that you want, then you find a store that sells it.

Why is anyone trying to complicate such a simple matter?

"The question really is whether the patient's rights come first or the pharmacist's rights come first."

That's silly! OF COURSE the pharmacist can choose what he will or won't sell!

Could I compel my grocery store to stock vegemite or cumquats or kohlrabi? Heck no! I could ask them to, but they could certainly decline my request. (For whatever reason!) And I have the freedom to take my business elsewhere.

Captain Kirk said:
A business owner has a right to decide what to sell and what not to sell based on conscience and/or market demand.
This individual right should outweigh any agenda or program of the collective.

Utah legislature seek to close hooka bars, isn't this the usual hypocrisy by the morality police?

@Midwestmon
If a woman or young child was raped I hope that she would not be taken to a pharmacy for care but a hospital. And if a woman becomes "pregnant" then they are past the use of Plan B. This woman will need to seek further medical assistance if she needs to terminate the pregnancy due to medical issues. But I'm sure that she has already seen a doctor to know that the pregnancy is life threatening. The woman most likely wanted the pregnancy. If not, and if she knows that becoming pregnant is life threatening then why isn't she taking the normal precautions. Like going to a pharmacy that sells contraceptives or condoms.

I think you would be surprised on how many locations there are that don't sell contraceptives including condoms.

This is a victory for religious liberty. An example of why I contribute to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (which pursued this case) and will continue to do so.