[Update, 10:15 am, 12 August: Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, who is a central figure in the story of Barack Obama's support for infanticide, gave a deeper explanation of Megan Kelly's background on her blog on Monday evening.]
ABC correspondent Gigi Stone’s report on Friday’s World News lined up two liberal women against a pro-life pharmacist in a segment on the controversy over whether pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception. She later reported in a condescending tone about how the family of the pharmacist has nine children [see video at right; audio available here].
Stone introduced the first woman, Megan Kelly, as a "married mother." Several years ago, as Stone described, Kelly "tried to fill her monthly birth control pills [when] a pharmacist refused."
In her sound bite, Kelly explained her reaction to this refusal: "It's very, very shocking and very unsettling and one of those moments where, you know, as like a female, you're not sure if you want to cry, if you want to get really mad."
Though Stone did report that Kelly had filed a complaint with the state of Illinois over the pharmacist’s refusal, she oversimplified how the Democratic-controlled state government responded. In April 2005, Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich instituted an "emergency rule" which forced pharmacies "to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay," as the Washington Post reported at the time. Instead of reporting this detail, Stone merely stated that "the state of Illinois... now requires pharmacies to fill all prescriptions. California and New Jersey recently enacted similar laws." She also omitted how Kelly now campaigns for government-mandated stocking of contraceptives at pharmacies.
The ABC correspondent later lead into the sound bite of the other woman, Katherine Humphrey of Planned Parenthood, by stating how "[s]ome women's rights advocates say women who are denied will seek out unsafe alternatives." Humphrey then gave her take on the issue: "Without access to this essential health care, women's health and their lives are at risk." Contraception is "essential health care"?
Substitute anchor Kate Snow, hinted at ABC’s liberal leanings on the topic when she introduced Stone’s report: "Increasingly, the corner pharmacy is no longer stocking a product used by many Americans -- birth control. The pharmacy owners say they have a right to withhold products and services they find objectionable. But critics say these drug stores are trampling on the rights of women to obtain safe and legal contraceptives."
The full transcript of Gigi Stone’s report from Friday’s World News:
KATE SNOW: Increasingly, the corner pharmacy is no longer stocking a product used by many Americans -- birth control. The pharmacy owners say they have a right to withhold products and services they find objectionable. But critics say these drug stores are trampling on the rights of women to obtain safe and legal contraceptives. Now, some lawmakers are getting involved -- with our 'Closer Look' tonight, here's ABC's Gigi Stone.
GIGI STONE (voice-over): Kay pharmacy in Grand Rapids, Michigan, looks like any other pharmacy. But there are some things you won't find -- no condoms, no birth control. Owner Mike Koelzer sent this letter to his customers, telling them he would no longer be filling their prescriptions for contraception.
STONE (on-camera): You feel so strong enough about this you're willing to lose business?
MIKE KOELZER, OWNER, KAY PHARMACY: I was and will be willing to lose the business, in order to not be a part of something that I don't agree with [sic].
STONE: Individual pharmacists refusing to sell birth control is not new. But this is a new front in the culture war. Privately-owned pharmacies refusing to sell birth control or contraceptives, because it violates their religious beliefs.
STONE (voice-over): A group called Pharmacists for Life claims it is a growing movement. This deeply disturbs married mother Megan Kelly. When she tried to fill her monthly birth control pills, a pharmacist refused.
MEGAN KELLY: It's very, very shocking and very unsettling and one of those moments where, you know, as like a female, you're not sure if you want to cry, if you want to get really mad.
STONE: Megan filed a complaint with the state of Illinois, which now requires pharmacies to fill all prescriptions. California and New Jersey recently enacted similar laws. But in most states, pharmacies can refuse to sell anything they don't want to. Some women's rights advocates say women who are denied will seek out unsafe alternatives.
KATHERINE HUMPHREY, PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Without access to this essential health care, women's health and their lives are at risk.
STONE: But independent pharmacy owners who object to contraception argue they have a right to what to decide what they sell, and people should able to choose for themselves. The Koelzers have chosen not to use birth control. They have nine children. Gigi Stone, ABC News, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
SNOW: You can join the debate and vote on whether pharmacies should have the right to refuse to sell birth control. That's at ABCNews.com.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
MEGAN KELLY: It's very, very
August 11, 2008 - 13:59 ET by SickofLibsMEGAN KELLY: It's very, very shocking and very unsettling...
Too f-ing bad; go to another pharmacy then.
What's next, voodoo priestesses demanding all pharmacies must also dispense ground mummy and gorilla paws?
Not sure ground mummy and
August 11, 2008 - 14:06 ET by balboaNot sure ground mummy and gorilla paws fall into the same category as birth control pills.
I don't get pharmacists refusing to dispense certain pills. Why are you a pharmacist, then? It's like becoming a cop but refusing to enforce certain laws you don't agree with.
bal
August 11, 2008 - 14:15 ET by lotrIt's like becoming a cop but refusing to enforce certain laws you don't agree with.
Poor analogy. The pharmacist sells drugs, and under a free-market, has the right to sell or not sell whatever drugs he or she deems acceptable, provided they are legal. A far more accurate analogy would be the convenience store owner who chooses not to sell cigarettes.
Is this a pharmacy policy or
August 11, 2008 - 14:20 ET by balboaIs this a pharmacy policy or pharmacist? Because then you've got one convenience store worker refusing to fill a scrip, and others that will. That doesn't make sense.
bal
August 11, 2008 - 15:40 ET by lotrI took it to be the former, with the reporter putting the typical Leftist spin on it (the subject of this blog). If it's the latter, then I agree with you, and the employee would certainly be subject to discipline/termination according to the pharmacy's policy -- if one doesn't do their job, then one is subject to being fired. But again, I thought this was a pharmacy policy, in which case they've done nothing wrong or illegal.
No, it doesn't make sense.
August 11, 2008 - 15:48 ET by Indiana JoeSo, I would think it's safe to say that either this pharmacist owns the store, or the owners agree with the policy. If they didn't, they could always fire him.
where do our kids keep
August 11, 2008 - 19:10 ET by TruthMongerwhere do our kids keep getting this idea that private stores are obligated by law to sell leftward products? hmmmm....
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
We use docters to administer
August 11, 2008 - 16:36 ET by RainsfordWe use docters to administer lethal injections. Using this logic, someone shouldn't become a docter if they don't plan on administering lethal injections.
Bad analogy "We use docters
August 11, 2008 - 16:43 ET by Dan The Man 2Bad analogy "We use docters to administer lethal injections. Using this logic, someone shouldn't become a docter if they don't plan on administering lethal injections" as doctors are not required to perform lethal injections or abortions. In fact they are sworn to uphold life.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Lethal injection: a complicated, expensive, medical perversion
August 11, 2008 - 16:55 ET by sarcasmoOf what should be a simple, cheap execution process. Hang 'em, and re-use the rope. No doc or drugs needed. Or if the government, for some reason, simply must use drugs, they should at least use what's guaranteed to work. An OD of the heroin they take from drug dealers anyway guarantees death sans 8th Amendment issues from the lawyers.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
It would work
August 11, 2008 - 23:42 ET by stratmanHeroin would be a bit messy as it oftentimes triggers vomiting.
Thiopental works nicely, with or without pancuronium to paralyze muscles used to hasten death and make the death easier to watch as there are no death throes.
Rope works well but can sometimes cause an annoying side effect of decapitation, as with Saddam's half-brother. (not cool if you're the janitor)
RRAM Tough!
bc
August 11, 2008 - 14:18 ET by ginagwen7His objection lies in the way bc pills work. The estrogen inhibits ovulation (it does not prohibit it entirely), but if there is a breakthrough ovulation and said egg is fertilized, the progesterone causes the uterine lining to reject implantation of a human embryo. So the pharmacist's objection is founded in the fact that bc pills work partly as an abortifacient.
And my objection lies with
August 11, 2008 - 15:18 ET by JerAnd my objection lies with the fact that the pharmacist's action could theoretically lead to, instead of the loss of a minute fertilized egg, the "killing" of an unwanted fetus several months later.
Jer
*scratches head*
August 11, 2008 - 15:24 ET by candanceThat makes no sense. That's like saying if this bartender doesn't give someone more beer, they'll get mad and go to the bar down the street where they can get more drunk.
You can't guilt trip someone into going along with you because of a litany of "what ifs."
It's also possible that some of these girls might end up hearing the heartbeat and decide to let the baby live.
And really your answer is begging the question anyway. If the pill is designed to terminate a pregnancy after the fact, then it's really just an abortion done to a tiny baby instead of a big baby.
"shakes head and sighs, bewilderingly"
August 11, 2008 - 16:42 ET by JerThe scenario I describe may be unlikely--farfetched even--but to suggest it is theoretical nonsense is, well, nonsense.
Further, it is somewhat ironic to be accused of "guilt-tripping" when Democrats are rather routinely accused [not by you] of being murderers and baby killers.
I simply draw a distinction between a protoplasmic cellular mass smaller than a pin dot and a several month old fetus, and accordingly attach a greater importance to the well-being of the latter over the former. You do not draw any distinction, and thus our views differ. I respect your view, as I hope you do mine.
Jer
Flawed analogy
August 11, 2008 - 17:13 ET by nkviking75Your scenario fails to account for the fact that anyone in America can go countless places for birth control pills, including mail order and the internet. She also has the option to choose other methods to which the pharmacist wouldn't object, although that's admittedly unlikely.
Finally, when the pharmacist doesn't give the woman what she wants, she is not denied birth control. She is denied a method of birth control from one supplier. He's not imposing his will on her. He's just refusing to participate in it. She, on the other hand, is willing to use the heavy hand of government to shove what the pharmacist feels is objectionable down his throat. It's his freedom that is trampled, not hers.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Not a flawed analogy, nkviking,
August 11, 2008 - 17:37 ET by JerNot a flawed analogy, nkviking, but admittedly a rather weak premise producing a highly unlikely scenario constructed of several "slippery slope" components. Otherwise, the logic is irrefutable. ;-)
Jer
Biased thinking
August 11, 2008 - 19:00 ET by CobraManIt's not a flawed analogy, just biased thinking. Look at it the other way around. We know that increased estrogen levels greatly increase the risk of strokes for women, especially in later life. By refusing to sell her an estrogen-based product, he's actually trying to save her life, both now and in the future.
Biased thinking? Maybe, but...
August 11, 2008 - 19:43 ET by JerBy refusing to sell her an estrogen-based product, he's actually trying to save her life, both now and in the future.
Still, your statement above is irrelevant--at least with respect to the present debate. Do you honestly believe that is the motivation underlying the pharmicists' decision?
Jer
Do as I say, not as I do?
August 11, 2008 - 20:16 ET by CobraMan"your statement above is irrelevant--at least with respect to the present debate"
Is it really? I’m glad you said that.
It seems to be that, by your own admission, you were using "unlikely, farfetched even," POSSIBLE situations to defend your assessment of a hypothetical situation (she didn't become pregnant because the pharmacist refused to sell her birth-control pills. So much for the relevance of your argument!). Why can't I use the same method to refute your hypothetical conclusion and come to a conclusion of my own? Sauce for the goose...
Motivation is irrevelent
August 11, 2008 - 20:23 ET by CobraManBTW, the motivation of his decision is what is really irrelevant here as that is HIS decision to make. Not yours, not mine, and certainly not the lady he refused to serve. Since it is his decision and he didn't break the law by refusing to sell a commercial product to a potential customer, I don't really care what his motivation was.
it's all good Jer
August 11, 2008 - 19:01 ET by candanceI wasn't trying to jump on you - I was just stating my opinion. We've reached our fundamental disagreement so it's best to call truce and move on. :)
it's all about the point at
August 11, 2008 - 19:15 ET by TruthMongerit's all about the point at which we become people with the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and universal healthcare
as for me I am a forty-four year old cellular mass, a fetus in other words
feel free to abort me if I'm inconvenient to you
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Either human life begins at
August 11, 2008 - 15:24 ET by Matthew BalanEither human life begins at conception or not. If it does, than it's murder, at whatever subsequent point.
Matthew
August 11, 2008 - 15:59 ET by lotrBirth control pills are, plainly speaking, artificial chemical female hormones. These chemicals operate in the female body by disrupting her entire endocrine system and natural hormonal cycle (anatomy aside: all endocrine glands, including reproductive, are connected in a complex system of feedbacks that one should not tamper with lightly), effectively suppressing ovulation, or worse, preventing implantation of an already conceived zygote. The so-called "period" that a woman gets is not a period at all -- it's a simulated period. Thus, even if one believes life does not begin at conception, there are still reasons why one may object to birth control pills on ethical/moral grounds. And even so, thanks to the free market, these chemicals are nonetheless very readily available (until the FDA rules otherwise), this alarmist piece not withstanding.
Well, Matthew, according to
August 11, 2008 - 17:49 ET by JerWell, Matthew, according to the current and recent Republican party platforms, life does indeed begin at conception, thus rendering the taking of birth control pills--according to your view--murder, committed by millions of American women daily, many of whom, I suspect, are Republican. What punishment shall we mete out to them?
Jer
not quite Jer
August 11, 2008 - 18:57 ET by candanceMost birth control medication is preventative, making a woman barren so the seed doesn't have anywhere to go. That's a big difference between letting the seed touch "fertile soil" and then killing it at the last second.
You're correct, candance.
August 11, 2008 - 19:53 ET by JerYou're correct, candance. I don't know the usage break-down between birth control pills which are preventative versus those which are abortifacients, but my post at least implicitly overstated the latter category.
Perhaps either ginagwen or lotr, both of whom spoke very knowledgably on the subject, would have an idea.
Jer
Very nice use of quotes, there Jer
August 11, 2008 - 15:39 ET by SickofLibs"killing" of an unwanted fetus?
What term are you most comfortable with, then? Termination? Cessation of life forces? Euthanasia? Cull? Off?
Sickof Libs...
August 11, 2008 - 16:23 ET by JerI'm not particularly comfortable with any of the terms. I'll leave it to the medical and scientific community. How about you?
Jer
I like the term baby as it
August 11, 2008 - 16:51 ET by Dan The Man 2I like the term baby as it gives the true meaning of what a fetus is. Ask any woman who intends on carrying to term and Im sure she will say baby and not the blob of tissue in my womb or fetus. And the parents will begin to think of names for the baby, when is the last time you names a piece of skin?
Life begins at conception.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Well, Dan
August 11, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Cool ArrowWhen I was in Junior High, I liked the name Burford.
Russel?
Wally?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Don't let others define your morality
August 11, 2008 - 19:06 ET by CobraManPersonally, I'm not going to leave morality decisions to anyone other than myself. This includes defining the terms for infanticide. Killing a child, no matter what level of development they may have reached, is infanticide, period. No amount of "medical" terms or "scientific" rationalities will change that.
a civilization must decide
August 11, 2008 - 19:19 ET by TruthMongera civilization must decide laws - based entirely on morality
you yourself can opt out of the process in a democracy if you wish
someone else can always handle your civic duty:)
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
I make those laws too
August 11, 2008 - 19:35 ET by CobraManI'm not going to leave it to others to decide FOR ME what my civic duty is and more than I will let them decide my morality beliefs.
Yes, society makes the laws based on common morality (to some extent), and, as a citizen, I HELP make those laws by choosing who will represent me in government. Like most people, I use my PERSONAL morality beliefs to help me decide who to vote for and I judge each candidate based on the similarities between THEIR personal morality beliefs and my own. That's how lawmakers are chosen in our society. So, I’m not avoiding my “civic duty” by having MY OWN morality beliefs, I’m actually part of the decision making process itself. As part of that process, I’m STILL not going to let someone else define morality for me. If I can’t make those decisions for myself then I’m useless in my “civic duty,” wouldn’t you agree?
why yes, i
August 12, 2008 - 11:06 ET by TruthMongerwhy yes, i would:)
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
"And my objection lies with
August 11, 2008 - 16:31 ET by ckc1227"And my objection lies with the fact that the pharmacist's action could
theoretically lead to, instead of the loss of a minute fertilized egg,
the "killing" of an unwanted fetus several months later."
Only if the pharmacist has unprotected sex with the woman he refused to sell birth control. If not, then the only actions responsible for the killing of an unwanted fetus months later are the actions of the woman and her partner who choose to have unprotected sex.
Laws
August 11, 2008 - 14:21 ET by cocodrieThis is obviously a put up job by the abortion rights pro death crowd and the ACLU. The police already arbitrarily enforce or ignore certain laws. This will come out when we find out who is filing the lawsuit for her.
and what was that line
August 11, 2008 - 14:29 ET by TruthMongerand what was that line about "trampling" on medicine "RIGHTS?!?!?"
where do all these new rights come from i wonder
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
The Constitution...
August 11, 2008 - 14:34 ET by Clear thinkerThe "Living Breathing Always Changing Liberal Constitution". As written by Bigfoot and the Tooth Fairy.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
A few years ago, my
August 11, 2008 - 14:23 ET by Hero SquadA few years ago, my wife required a special prescription that was only dispensed at a select few pharmacies, and the pharmacy we typically used was not one of them.
Instead of just taking my business to a pharmacy that dispensed this drug, I should've instead sued our pharmacy... along with every other pharmacy that didn't provide us with convenient access to the prescription we needed.
*Sigh* If only I was more litigious-minded I might be living on Easy Street today.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Did the pharmacy refuse to
August 11, 2008 - 14:27 ET by balboaDid the pharmacy refuse to stock the drug for religious reasons?
Religous reasons?
August 11, 2008 - 19:21 ET by CobraManSince when does ANYONE need an approprate reason to stock, or refuse to stock, a commercial product? This is still a free market system and people are free to stock, or refuse to stock, any product they want for any reason they feel is appropriate. The "reason" itself is not important as no crime has been committed, unless you feel that "religious reasons" should be criminalized.
(on edit: that should read "need an approprate reason" and not "need a reason")
Bal
August 11, 2008 - 14:24 ET by rgoldCurious. Do you also feel all OB-GYN's should be required to perform abortions? Even late term abotions for depression (a medical condition, right)?
Cop analogy
August 11, 2008 - 14:36 ET by SickofLibsAs far as I know, pharmacists don't swear to an oath to upload the laws of the land as cops do. They ARE licensed, but I don't believe that license mandates they must stock any and all medications.
For the sake of argument, let's assume we're talking about a private family-owned pharmacy business, not a national chain. What right does the government have to tell the owner what he has to sell?
My little local independent hardware store does not refill propane cylinders; should I file a lawsuit to force them to do so?
If it's an independent
August 11, 2008 - 14:52 ET by balboaIf it's an independent pharmacy, then you can stock whatever you want. But if the pharmacy you work for sells the pill, but you won't do it, then you shouldn't work there.
read the article
August 11, 2008 - 15:17 ET by candanceTake the time to read the whole thing. The owners were the ones who refused it.
And apparently, according to this, you agree with our assessment. The state of Illinois passed a law requiring all pharmacies to fill scripts for every drug.
Interesting. Perhaps
August 11, 2008 - 15:26 ET by balboaInteresting. Perhaps Illinois was trying to avoid opening a can of worms where pharmacists started refusing to fill scrips for all kinds of medications based on religion or other things. You know some kooky animal rights person is just _dying_ to not fill a scrip because they tested the drug on a gerbil.
kooky animal rights
August 11, 2008 - 15:32 ET by candanceHey if someone invests their capitol into building a company and works their butt of to succeed, I don't care what they choose to sell or not to sell. They refuse products tested on animals, whatever, it's not the end of the world.
I'm willing to sacrifice a little convenience and/or gas money to keep the government away from regulating any more companies.
Well if that was to happen,
August 11, 2008 - 17:14 ET by RainsfordWell if that was to happen, the person running the convinence store that the pharmacy was in would promptly fire that pharmacist. If they didn't, the pharmacy down the block would start seeing an increase in revenue, as people would flock to that store to get the medicine that the first pharmacy refused to hand out. I don't see the issue here. With the sheer number of pharmacies present in most American towns, this is hardly an issue.
So much for the free market system
August 11, 2008 - 20:03 ET by CobraManSo much for the free-market system. The State of Illinois has now taken upon itself to make business decisions that were, until now, entirely at the discretion of the proprietor. This brings up a serious question. Will this direct government interference extend itself into other proprietorships as well and will the government eventually mandate that Wal-Mart, for example, carry EVERY product simply because someone may desire it or because Wal-Mart may refuse to sell a particular product for any particular reason? For the sake of our economy, I hope not!
Wait, Wal-Mart doesn't carry
August 11, 2008 - 20:04 ET by balboaWait, Wal-Mart doesn't carry every product?
Huh...
It's only fair since they
August 11, 2008 - 20:08 ET by Free StinkerIt's only fair since they don't carry health insurance! ;-)
"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)
Sears, where America USED to shop.
August 11, 2008 - 20:39 ET by CobraManNope. Try finding a Kenmore appliance at Wal-Mart.
no cobra
August 11, 2008 - 20:14 ET by candanceYou're missing the point here. It isn't about convenience for a shopper - it's about a pharmacist having the nerve to be openly religious.
We can still refuse to stock something because it's not economically feasible or we don't have the room for it. We just can't refuse on the basis of religion.
As has been mentioned on here before, daily life is full of little inconveniences since every store doesn't stock every product...and it's never been a problem until now.
This is the beginning of the government forcing private citizens to abandon their convictions or lose employment.
I get the point
August 11, 2008 - 20:35 ET by CobraManI do get the point. Some people think that their rights override the rights of others. In this case, the "right" of this woman to buy commercial birth control pills, which she chooses to use based on her personal beliefs, overrides the right of a proprietor to deny her service based on his personal beliefs.
Unfortunately for the citizens of Illinois, the government has decided that THEY will make the decisions for the proprietors in order to deny them the right to make those decisions themselves. Religion is just the excuse; the practical effect is greater government control over the free market system. That's a quick trip to economic doom.
The pharmacy in this story
August 11, 2008 - 15:25 ET by SickofLibsThe pharmacy in this story is independent, so we agree that they can stock whatever they want, and they don't have to give a reason, religious or otherwise, about their choices.
I do agree with you that an individual pharmacist-employee should work elsewhere if they refuse to fill a birth control Rx that the store stocks. You could probably find a lawyer in 10 minutes that would jump on that case.
exactly sick
August 11, 2008 - 15:28 ET by candanceSome pharmacies will choose to stock it, some pharmacies won't. Employees who don't like can choose to work at a store that fits in with their beliefs. However if you force everyone to do the exact same thing, you'll see a huge drop of conservies working in that field.
I love how a woman's right to choose means everyone else has it shoved down their throats.
um no balboa
August 11, 2008 - 15:13 ET by candanceI really don't buy the argument that if you don't like something you should have to change your industry to accomodate.
Go tell someone who has been a pharmacist for 30 years and built a drugstore out of nothing, and their state authorizes the Plan B pill against their wishes. Go tell them to find a new job.
This isn't like being a bartender where alcohol is the essense of the job. This is akin to saying all doctors have to perform abortions or all pastors have to do gay weddings. You can't get in the business of forcing people to offer a service or product against their will.
If people want such products, let them patron a business that sells them. That's how the free market works - create demand and someone will be willing to sell it.
Instead of going to another
August 11, 2008 - 14:00 ET by bigtimerInstead of going to another pharmacy she files a law-suit....
No agenda here now is there...
By the way...what part of it's a free country, free enterprise, that Snow and others doesn't understand...
Oops...they want total govt. control, they aren't leftists for nothing.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
hey bt, do you know
August 11, 2008 - 14:43 ET by TruthMongerhey bt, do you know which pharmacies teach evolution? American history? Math? Reading?
our local schools won't do it:(
being public institutions - they don't have to cater to us - if they don't want to, ya see
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
When she tried to fill her
August 11, 2008 - 14:09 ET by lotrWhen she tried to fill her monthly birth control pills, a pharmacist refused.
So, taking this sentence at face value, we have a pharmacy with the artificial female chemical hormones in stock, but the mean-spirited pharmacist "refused" to sell them to this woman, apparently just to be mean. Well, if that doesn't qualify as a blatantly liberal media spin, I don't know what does.
It's very, very shocking and very unsettling and one of those moments where, you know, as like a female, you're not sure if you want to cry, if you want to get really mad.
Withdrawl symptoms? Oh, the humanity!
My assumption is that Mrs.
August 11, 2008 - 14:19 ET by Darth DutchMy assumption is that Mrs. Kelly is probably pro-choice, based on her over the top reaction to being denied birth control by a pharmarcist for "religious reasons". I find it completely laughable that a pro-choice person would not extend the same choice to people with religious faith. If that person doesn't want to fill the prescription, you can bet there are other pharmacists who would love to. Why wouldn't Mrs. Kelly choose not to give her business to a pharmacist who would sell her the drugs instead of suing to go to a pharmacist that doesn't want to do that?
This is akin to suing a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion rather than going to one of the many who would. My wife is in the medical field and she has a right to refuse to write a prescription for someone to get an abortion, but she has to refer them to another doctor who will do that. It shouldn't be any different here.
Darth Dutch
Darth,
August 11, 2008 - 15:58 ET by Indiana JoeWell, the "pro-choice" faction has repeatedly shown that the only "choice" they're really interested in is the "choice" they agree with.
And they'll legislate that "choice" for us, if necessary.
"You can have any color you want, as long as it's black." - Henry Ford
and strangely enough, 10
August 11, 2008 - 19:24 ET by TruthMongerand strangely enough, 10 out of 10 babies - when given the chance - choose life!
unfortunately this is something "pro-choicers" just cannot accept
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
It's not a liberal vs. conservative issue
August 11, 2008 - 14:20 ET by TexndocBirth control tablets are prescribed for many other reasons than birth control, including treatment of benign ovarian cysts, less pelvic pain, and less heavy periods. Including prescribing them to teens not even sexually active who otherwise would have to stay home from school on "flow days". As an MD I have had to "argue" with pharmacists once or twice in my 20 plus year career, and it's infuriating, but very infrequent. It began with "the morning after pill" and has resulted in that being available in my state by law, to anyone, without a prescription, who goes into a pharmacy and asks for it.
"As an MD I have had to
August 11, 2008 - 16:21 ET by ckc1227"As an MD I have had to "argue" with pharmacists once or twice in my 20
plus year career, and it's infuriating, but very infrequent"
Granted, I'm not an MD, but wouldn't your time as an MD have been better spent simply telling your patients to go to a different pharmacy?
Maybe so
August 11, 2008 - 16:30 ET by sarcasmoBut it's interesting that pharmacists, and people like me, don't seem to know jack squat about those uses for that medicine...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
My sister-in-law is dead
August 11, 2008 - 17:13 ET by cocodrieMy sister-in-law is dead because the birth control pills prescribed by her physician caused a fatal heart attack. I am sure if you are a real doctor you will come up with an explanation blaming her death on anything besides the medication or the physician. The pills now carry a warning that heart attacks are possible in overweight women. This is another case of liberals wanting to control every aspect of our lives.
Bal,
August 11, 2008 - 14:33 ET by voodoodaddyYou got that right. Me thinks Mr. anti-contraceptive needs a new occupation. Sorry, if you want to be a licensed pharmacist then you have to be one to all. You don't get to pick and choose what meds you want to dispense and what ones you don't. Whether you want to sell condoms and other devices is your choice but not meds/prescriptions. So either dispense them or get a new job. Just my opinion.
So if you had your way,
August 11, 2008 - 14:39 ET by Matthew BalanSo if you had your way, you'd deny an owner of a pharmacy the right to stock his store as he sees fit?
Right, Matt. My pharmacy (a
August 11, 2008 - 14:50 ET by SickofLibsRight, Matt.
My pharmacy (a chain) does not stock a generic for a prescription I take, although one exists.
So I guess I should sue. (Hey, Silky Pony has some time on his hands... maybe he's the man for the job!)
Medical Professions
August 11, 2008 - 14:45 ET by ElyasSo you wouldn't have the right to refuse giving certain kinds of treatments as a doctor?
Like an abortion?
The government shouldn't force medical professionials to do things that are against their morals and religious choices.
Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.
- Ronald Reagan
So every pharmacist has to
August 11, 2008 - 14:53 ET by motherbeltSo every pharmacist has to stock and dispense every possible medication that might be prescribed?
In the 70's, when contraceptives were fairly new, there were actually Catholic doctors who wouldn't write prescriptions for them; they would direct their patients wanting them to doctors who would. None of them, that I know of, ever got sued, or went out of business for lack of clients.
But that was before we all got the the idea that our desires translate into unalienable rights, obtainable wherever we choose to demand them.
"None of them, that I know
August 11, 2008 - 14:58 ET by SickofLibs"None of them, that I know of, ever got sued..."
Until Silky Pony galloped up in the 80s and saved the day.
The Right to do whatever comes to mind
August 11, 2008 - 14:48 ET by KC MulvilleI just can't get past laughing at: "the rights of women to obtain safe and legal contraceptives."
What will happen to these women if they don't have sex?
Well, KC...my wife gets
August 11, 2008 - 18:32 ET by JerWell, KC...my wife gets awfully cranky.
Jer
Well thank God
August 11, 2008 - 19:02 ET by KC MulvilleWell thank God somebody's does. LOL!
Welcome Back Jer
August 12, 2008 - 00:22 ET by stratmanJer:
Better she's cranky due to a lack of sex rather than during sex.
;-)
What's even worse, strat,
August 12, 2008 - 00:35 ET by JerWhat's even worse, strat, is that even sometimes afterwards she'll still be cranky, claiming that it was due to a lack of sex.
Jer
Ouch!
August 12, 2008 - 10:52 ET by stratmanI recommend you do what millions of men do to avoid all that touchie-feelie feelings, whadya-thinking-about post-mortem following sex - sleep.
Jer, aka Rodney Dangerfield incognito
August 12, 2008 - 11:57 ET by lotrSounds like someone needs to spend a little less time on NB... :-)
No respect, I tell ya.
Bingo, lotr...
August 12, 2008 - 18:27 ET by JerSounds like someone needs to spend a little less time on NB
Bingo, lotr...I've been trying. Is there a 12-step program? And to think, I was able to quit smoking and drinking--cold turkey.
Jer
Don't worry Jer -- my wife
August 12, 2008 - 20:30 ET by lotrDon't worry Jer -- my wife would say the same about me (regarding too much NB, that is..... ahem). So maybe I'm projecting here. Kudos on quiting smoking, but quiting drinking? That's a tough one.
Don't worry Jer -- my wife
August 12, 2008 - 20:30 ET by lotrDon't worry Jer -- my wife would say the same about me (regarding too much NB, that is..... ahem). So maybe I'm projecting here. Kudos on quiting smoking, but quiting drinking? That's a tough one.
Lib logic
August 11, 2008 - 14:59 ET by Tjexcite"Increasingly, the corner pharmacy is no longer stocking a product used by many Americans -- birth control".
Under that logic every corner pharmacy store should have tobacco, alcohol, and gasoline as many Americans also use them as well. And every drug that that has every been made, as you would never know what Rx will come in. Someone may want Thalidomide for cancer and is also getting condoms. Should the Pharmacist not also refuse as rubbers do not work 100% of the time and the doctor would not let them have both Thalidomide and birth control.
Clearly, in the eyes of
August 11, 2008 - 15:20 ET by deerjerkydaveClearly, in the eyes of pro-abortion liberals, the right to abortion trumps the right of freedom of religion. Except one of these rights is enumerated in the constitution and the other is not.
Wouldn't this kind of thing just be...
August 11, 2008 - 15:30 ET by sarcasmoA HUGE opportunity for internet pharmacies? (A good many of these businesses already offer me a variety of penis-enlargement drugs daily, according to my spamfilters...)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Women's live are at risk?!
August 11, 2008 - 15:49 ET by SickofLibsSTONE: "Some women's rights advocates say women who are denied will seek out unsafe alternatives."
So instead of driving a few miles to another pharmacy, they're gonna head to the nearest alley for a coathanger abortion?
Women of America, this is how moronic Stone/ABC thinks you are that they would actually put sh*t like this on air.
Have any of these women
August 11, 2008 - 15:54 ET by bassndudeHave any of these women ever heard of WAL-MART????
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Why bass.... These same
August 11, 2008 - 15:58 ET by bigtimerWhy bass....
These same agenda-driven women wouldn't shop at Wal-Mart, isn't unionized.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Well, silly me:-) Save a
August 11, 2008 - 15:59 ET by bassndudeWell, silly me:-)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
This was posted in answer to
August 11, 2008 - 17:27 ET by cocodrieThis was posted in answer to the commemt by ckc1227. I am reposting it because being a physician does not give a person good enough judgement to second guess the decisions of others. My sister-in-law is dead because the birth control pills prescribed by her physician caused a fatal heart attack. I am sure if you are a real doctor you will come up with an explanation blaming her death on anything besides the medication or the physician. the pills now carry a warning that heart attacks are possible in overweight women. This is another case of liberals wanting to control every aspect of our lives.
How very sad. Of
August 11, 2008 - 20:55 ET by lotrHow very sad.
Of course, this is not to mention the other side effects associated with these chemicals as experienced by countless other "obedient" women out there. I'm not saying that birth control pills can't be useful to certain individuals -- I'm just skeptical of the "wonder miracle drug status" they are promoted as in popular media -- as if all those women in the millennia leading up to the enlightened 60s were somehow deprived of something. Even writing this here I fear I'm committing some sort of sacrilege. If they are used, they should not be used lightly, and no one should complain if a pharmacy decides they will not sell them on ethical grounds.
A bad omen
August 11, 2008 - 22:00 ET by WingletDriverFor those who think that just because this guy owns a pharmacy he must go with the flow have forgotten the 1940s. There were a great number of German and Italian doctors who chose the easy path of following what their political and social leaders told them to do. Not just in death camps but also forced sterilization, euthanasia, and immoral (by any standard) medical experimentation. Doctors is the US intentionally gave STDs to Black men to see the long term effects. This last example was in the US, not Nazi Germany.
Before you assert that the state has the "right" to override the religious and ethical concerns of private practice, think about how it's been abused in the past and how it will certainly be abused in the future. Why stop at contraception? Make pharmacists, against their conscience, prescribe euthanasia drugs. Force doctors to perform abortions as part of their "comprehensive women's health" service. Uncomfortable with experimenting on Black men by giving them syphilis--too bad, you don't have the right to refuse.
The Constitution recognizes our right to religious accommodation. It certainly is a stretch to think even in the penumbra and emanations that a consumer's convenience is greater than a doctor's or pharmacist's religious right.
"Doctors is the US
August 12, 2008 - 00:19 ET by stratmanPlease cite proof.
If you are referring to the Tuskagee Syphilis Study, all study subjects already had or were believed to have had syphilis prior to entering the study. No one was infected purposefully by medical personnel for inclusion into the study.
The study is reprehensible without adding fiction of Nazi/Japanese-styled forced infection like that of prisoners during WWII by the Axis powers.
I stand corrected
August 12, 2008 - 05:56 ET by WingletDriverThe US did not inject these men with syphilis. However, purposely not treating them for 40 years and in many cases preventing them from receiving proper treatment is every bit as bad.
But the overall point stands, before one starts citing the high ethics of the medical profession in the West, consider our very disturbing failures (this ended in 1972) and the surely disturbing future of telling medical professionals, whether pharmacists, nurses, researchers or doctors, that they are not allowed to follow their conscience.
→ Tuskeegee
August 12, 2008 - 06:09 ET by Cool ArrowMany honest questions have been neither asked nor answered concerning Tuskeegee. They won't be asked for obvious reasons.
I ♣ my seal
A point I didn't assert
August 12, 2008 - 06:21 ET by WingletDriverI didn't claim that doctors were forced to do this against their conscience. My point was that if they can tell pharmacists and doctors that they have to procedures or sell medication they find morally wrong, why not tell them they have to perform abortions? Why not tell researchers who would have had moral objections to the Tuskegee Experiment to shut up and color? Some bureaucrat says you have to do it.
→ Say again?
August 12, 2008 - 06:29 ET by Cool ArrowWhy not tell researchers who would have had moral objections to the Tuskegee Experiment to shut up and color?
And though I can't quite decipher your meaning in the above post, I'll offer the following:
All we can say for sure is that researchers in the Tuskeegee experiment did keep their mouths shut.
Their reasons for doing so may have been influenced by direct government edict, or greed, or some other sinister motive.
I ♣ my seal
Clearly a hypothetical
August 12, 2008 - 06:50 ET by WingletDriverthat I posed. That's why the question started with a "Why."
Of many things really disturbing about the Tuskegee Experiment is that for 40 years they all kept their mouths shut. That had to be hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors, nurses and administrators.
→ That's the worst of it
August 12, 2008 - 07:04 ET by Cool ArrowHard to understand how the code of silence lasted far beyond the discovery of a proven cure.
My suspicions are that the continuation of government grants played an important part.
But why Blacks would facilitate the deaths of other Blacks to continue a government grant is beyond my comprehension.
A more sinister theory I have is that this was really a prychological study fostered by some secret government agency.
Anybody who's taken Psych 1301 has seen the experiment where people are recruited to administer shocks to subjects when they give incorrect answers. The recruits don't realize they are the real subjects and those giving the answers are actors posing as subjects.
I ♣ my seal
We had this happen
August 12, 2008 - 10:02 ET by MaximusBraveheartWe were on vacation in FL and my wife forgot here BC pills which she takes for reasons other than BC (sounds crazy but shorter "..." (dots are hint to word) and better facial skin (no break outs).
Anyway she called it in to a local Walmart who was suppose to call and transfer the perscription from the Walmart in TX. So like 4 hrs. go by and they still do not have it ready despite then saying it would be by X time. We are in that town now (3/4 hr. from where we are staying) and go in to pick it up.
The pharmicist refused to fill it and called the POLICE on us (saying to police he felt his life was "threatened") when my wife started yelling at the guy for not delivering when people over the phone said it would be done. The Walmart mgt. came over and appologized saying the guy was a fill-in contract worker they have no control over.
Then we drove back "home" and went to the Walgreens on the corner and they called TX and had it filled literally in 15 min.
Very odd thing we had never experienced before. It seems pharmacist have a right not to fill perscriptions. It would have not been an issue if we had been told over the phone to go somewhere else thus we would not have wasted so much time and calls trying to get it filled at Walmart.
Needless to say it ruined our day. We are very pro-life too.