Washington’s Board of Pharmacy initially allowed individual pharmacists to refuse to sell Plan B pills based on moral objections, as long as there was another pharmacist available who didn’t share the same moral reservations…unless there wasn’t another pharmacist on staff at the same time, in which case you were screwed. And never mind that this meant that Pharmacy owners who might have moral objections to selling Plan B were essentially forced to sell the drug. Their choice didn’t matter.
As a result, they took the only course open to them. They sued. And now it appears that the Pharmacy Board has apparently come to its senses, and recognized that collective desires do not trump individual rights.
But don’t tell Planned Parenthood. They seem to believe that their choices are more important than the pharmacy owners.
Planned Parenthood says personal beliefs imposed on a patient are different from financial considerations. Advocates say women shouldn’t be delayed by a trip to another store when seeking the Plan B “morning after” pill, which can prevent fertilization or implantation of an egg if taken within 72 hours of sex.
John Carlson, the host of KVI 570′s 3-6pm show was discussing it with Laura Einstein, who is counsel for Planned Parenthood Great Northwest. Laura made some really poor analogies in trying to explain why it was ok for the pro-babykilling crowd to force pharmacists to sell a product that they may find morally objectionable.
I came in late, but the arguments made that I heard were:
1. If we allow the new proposed rule to go through, what happens to the women who can’t get to a different pharmacy, because they don’t own a car? This argument ignores the fact that in most of Washington, you can’t throw a rock without hitting a pharmacy, and that we pay exorbitant sums for public transportation. The idea that someone will somehow have their life changed ignores the fact that anyone you can name knows someone who owns a car, or can catch a bus to stores and pharmacies. This argument didn’t make any headway, and I really can’t fathom it going well with a Judge, either.
2. Because Pharmacists are licensed by the state, they have a monopoly, and therefore it is appropriate for the state to force them to sell it. This really is my favorite, because it is so dishonest and characterizes the reason for the license completely falsely. The government doesn’t require licensure in order to provide a secure living for the licensee; the government requires that pharmacists be licensed in order to protect the public health. That’s why in addition to all the schooling that pharmacists have to go through, they actually have to get tested by the state in order to prove that they actually learned something and understand things like which drugs might react very badly when taken with others…it is a public heath issue. And counsel would know this if she simply looked at the RCWs on the subject:
RCW 18.64.005 State Board of Pharmacy- Powers and Duties
(7) Promulgate rules for the dispensing, distribution, wholesaling, and manufacturing of drugs and devices and the practice of pharmacy for the protection and promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare. Violation of any such rules shall constitute grounds for refusal, suspension, or revocation of licenses or any other authority to practice issued by the board;[Emp. Added].
This was an unbelievably stupid argument to make, even for a lawyer so clearly partisan on the subject, and Carlson rightly called it so, pointing out that if a pharmacy license is a monopoly issued by the State, someone is getting ripped off, as there are
hundreds of pharmacies in Washington State, and many different ones often less than a mile from each other. It also fails the laugh test based on the fact that
Planned Parenthood itself offers Plan B as part of its contraceptive services in its
38 Washington “Health Centers” all across the state. If it is a monopoly, it’s a poorly managed one.
He asked her if she also believed that if a woman in a rural area of the state wanted an abortion and the only nearby doctor did not want to perform it on the grounds of moral objection, shouldn’t he be forced to do so? Afterall, if a pharmacist should be forced to sell a product, shouldn’t a doctor be forced to perform a procedure, especially it if would have the same result? Ms. Einstein objected to this, stating that it was a horrible analogy because that doctor “might not be qualified to perform the abortion”.
I can understand why she might not want anyone thinking too hard about this analogy. To start with, doctors in Washington can’t be forced to perform abortions. From the Revised Code of Washington (RCW):
9.02.150
Refusing to perform.
No person or private medical facility may be required by law or contract in any circumstances to participate in the performance of an abortion if such person or private medical facility objects to so doing. No person may be discriminated against in employment or professional privileges because of the person’s participation or refusal to participate in the termination of a pregnancy.
I wouldn’t want to have to explain why a doctor is allowed to not aid a woman in killing a baby, but a pharmacist is required to participate in such an act.
As for the “qualified to perform abortion”, there are two issues raised by this argument. The first is whether or not a doctor needs to have a certification or special license to do so. According to the RCWs, this does not appear to be the case:
9.02.110
Right to have and provide.
The state may not deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or to protect her life or health.
A physician may terminate and a health care provider may assist a physician in terminating a pregnancy as permitted by this section.
The only obvious restriction on performing an abortion under this section is found in the very next subsection:
9.02.120
Unauthorized abortions — Penalty.
Unless authorized by RCW
9.02.110, any person who performs an abortion on another person shall be guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter
9A.20 RCW.
The other issue is whether such a procedure should be performed by someone who doesn’t do so regularly. She was a tad more honest with this argument, as she stated that while she was an attorney, she probably wouldn’t take a criminal case, because she may not be competent to do so. I can understand and respect that, but at the same time, her example makes no allowances for variations in difficulty of such cases based on the offense. A criminal traffic matter is not the same as a murder, and does not require the same level of expertise or skill to successfully defend. I admit I am not a doctor, but physicians spend a lot of time learning their craft, and to make the argument that they could not handle a surgical procedure because they didn’t make a regular practice of it is less than honest. It isn’t all neurosurgery.
However, as her client, Planned Parenthood does perform abortions, and lots of them, I can understand her wanting to create the impression that only doctors who regularly perform abortions should be consulted to do so. Blood Money addictions can be some of the hardest to break, and the cruelest to justify.
By now, I had called in, and was salivating for a shot at her, but she left before Carlson took callers, and I was far enough back in the call queue that they didn’t get to me before there were a few minutes remaining and I was home and had to hang up so I could be Dad. Before she hung up, she and Carlson walked back through the facts and her arguments. She expressed the belief that “they would manage to persuade the Board of Pharmacy to do the right thing.” Carlson asked her “But didn’t the Board of Pharmacy vote unanimously to start new rule making procedures? Isn’t that indicative of them having made up their mind to change the rule?” Nonplussed, her response was something along the lines of “they still have to have public hearings on the proposed rule and besides, the Ninth Circuit already told the pharmacists that they have to sell it.” Carlson’s last word was “The Ninth Circuit? Well, we know what is likely to happen if it gets appealed to the Supreme Court, don’t we?”
But it is so much better than that, because once again, she mischaracterized what the
Ninth Circuit said about it, because in the Opinion issued last week,
the Ninth Circuit explicitly recognized the State Board of Pharmacy’s authority to set the policies regarding the dispensing of the drug. It overturned the injunction placed on enforcement of the rules that the Pharmacy Board now seeks to change not because the Board of Pharmacy does not have the authority to change the rule and allow pharmacists to have a choice also, but because to not enforce the existing rule was not consistent with Federal precedent, which is much different from the Ninth Circuit telling them that they
can’t do it.
I looked up Ms. Einstein’s bar information. She was licensed to practice in Washington five and a half years after I was. I have to confess that I’m torn. On the one hand, I am disgusted that a member of my profession and my state’s bar could be so disingenuous, and on the other hand, I’m glad that she is representing “the right to kill babies at all costs” crowd, because if she represents the best they have to offer, then I have every confidence that those of us who understand that the “right to choose [death]” does not trump all other rights will eventually prevail, if only because we don’t kill our children.
In my opinion, pharmacists whose consciences will not allow them to perform all of the duties required of a pharmacist (i.e. dispensing legal medications) should find another profession.
What other items might be withheld from customers because of a pharmacist who is unwilling to do his job? Birth control pills? An IUD? Condoms? Viagra for unmarried men?
Counselor, if I own a pharmacy and wish to hire another pharmacist to assist me, would I be within my rights to ask job applicants if there are any legal medications or devices that they will refuse to dispense? Or would I be illegally violating their freedom of religion and / or freedom of conscience by asking such questions?
Would I be within my rights to terminate the employment of someone who refused to dispense certain items from my pharmacy on grounds of conscience?
In my opinion, pharmacists whose consciences will not allow them to perform all of the duties required of a pharmacist (i.e. dispensing legal medications) should find another profession.
I see. Your opinion allows you to determine that people who don’t share your morals and values shouldn’t pursue certain professions? Why should pharmacists be treated differently from doctors in this state? Why should they be denied the right to act in conformity with their values when other professions are not compelled to go against their First Amendment beliefs?
What other items might be withheld from customers because of a pharmacist who is unwilling to do his job? Birth control pills? An IUD? Condoms? Viagra for unmarried men?
False Choice Alert!!!
One need not be a pharmacist to sell condoms in this state. I can buy them at the local Safeway, Albertson’s, Fred Meyer, Winn-Co, and many gas stations.
Not to mention that pharmacists don’t implant IUDs, and birth control pills and condoms prevent pregancies, not terminate them.
Counselor, if I own a pharmacy and wish to hire another pharmacist to assist me, would I be within my rights to ask job applicants if there are any legal medications or devices that they will refuse to dispense? Or would I be illegally violating their freedom of religion and / or freedom of conscience by asking such questions?
Off the top of my head, I would suggest to you if you were my client that you could not ask, because it is likely to lead to the same conclusion as if you asked the prospective employee’s religion, which you cannot ask. However, I believe that as the employer, you can write the job description to include dispensing Plan B to pharmacy customers, and if disclosed up front in the advertisement that brought the candidate to your attention and interview couch, then you probably get around that issue, and the question of discrimination based on the applicant’s values and beliefs. It is worth noting, however, that in this specific example, one of the parties is the owner of a local chain of pharmacies who has moral objections to dispensing the drug.
Would I be within my rights to terminate the employment of someone who refused to dispense certain items from my pharmacy on grounds of conscience?
Maybe, maybe not. But I think I just showed you the way to avoid the costly litigation that it would take to find out.
The analogy of a pharmacist to doctor-patient and lawyer-client relationships is poor. Usually there is little contact between pharmacist and patient. I’m unlikely even to meet the pharmacist when I drop off my prescription with the clerk and pick it up at the drive-through window.
I consider a pharmacist who won’t sell pills similar to a guns-and-hunting store employee who objects to selling firearms on the basis of his conscience. He’s OK with selling their deer blinds, cammo jackets and other hunting paraphernalia – but not guns.
My point about birth control pills and condoms was not to imply that they cause abortions. They do not, since they prevent sperm from ever meeting an egg. But as you well know, some people think that their use also violates moral and natural law. Is your concern for conscience limited to those who won’t dispense Plan B? If a pharmacist won’t dispense Viagra to men who he knows to be unmarried because he considers extramarital sex to be immoral, should his conscience trump his employer’s wishes, as well of the wishes of his customer?
Your answers to my questions about the employment status of pharmacists with peculiar requirements of conscience was interesting. Consider the case of a pharmacist who has been employed for ten years, but has just announced to his shop’s owner that he will no longer dispense Plan B, any birth control pills or viagra, citing concerns of religious conscience. He also refuses to sell any pseudophedrine-based decongestants, because of his concern that they it will be used to manufacture lethal illegal drugs.
May this employee-pharmacist he effectively decide what meds will and will not be dispensed on his watch at the pharmacy? Has the employer no clear right to decide what his shop’s policies are? After all, he’s just the owner.
The analogy of a pharmacist to doctor-patient and lawyer-client relationships is poor. Usually there is little contact between pharmacist and patient. I’m unlikely even to meet the pharmacist when I drop off my prescription with the clerk and pick it up at the drive-through window.
The analogy to doctors fits. Both are professionals, licenced by the state, in a profession that is directly charged with responsibilty for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, yet under Washington law, the doctor is permitted to not particpate in a act that will terminate a pregnancy, and the pharmacist is not if Planned Parenthood and its bloody-minded companions succeed. And the relationship doesn’t matter. Because there are many doctors who will not perform abortions, a patient may just as likely be placing themselves in the care of a practioner who they have no prior relationship with either.
I consider a pharmacist who won’t sell pills similar to a guns-and-hunting store employee who objects to selling firearms on the basis of his conscience. He’s OK with selling their deer blinds, cammo jackets and other hunting paraphernalia – but not guns.
Talk about bad analogies! The sporting good store employee does not have to obtain a license in order to ply his trade, nor does his job in anyway intersect with the core health, safety, or welfare categories in which the pharamcist operates daily. The pharmacist dispenses drugs that are intended to help sick people get better, people with ongoing conditions to manage them, relieve pain, and obtain prescription contraceptives. Adding a drug that is intended to kill a human at its earliest stages is at odds with the other purposes that a pharmacist fulfills. In contrast, the sporting goods employee knows that the purpose of all the hunting equipment all comes to the same purpose: to help the hunter kill game.
My point about birth control pills and condoms was not to imply that they cause abortions. They do not, since they prevent sperm from ever meeting an egg. But as you well know, some people think that their use also violates moral and natural law. Is your concern for conscience limited to those who won’t dispense Plan B? If a pharmacist won’t dispense Viagra to men who he knows to be unmarried because he considers extramarital sex to be immoral, should his conscience trump his employer’s wishes, as well of the wishes of his customer?
Regardless of your point, the distinction remains valid. Contraceptives prevent conception. Abortifacients terminate human life. No one should be made a party to killing, and this precept is well represented in our law, culture, and history, and may soon be part of the rules which govern pharmacists in this state. Objections to allowing people to continue in behavior which another person may find sinful are not offered the same protection under law, which is why liquor stores don’t have problems with teetotaling employees, and smoke shops don’t have problems with employees from truth.com.
Your answers to my questions about the employment status of pharmacists with peculiar requirements of conscience was interesting.
Is that a compliment or a recognition that it demonstrates a flexibility of thought that you have proven incapable of exercising during our short, unhappy association?
Consider the case of a pharmacist who has been employed for ten years, but has just announced to his shop’s owner that he will no longer dispense Plan B, any birth control pills or viagra, citing concerns of religious conscience. He also refuses to sell any pseudophedrine-based decongestants, because of his concern that they it will be used to manufacture lethal illegal drugs.
As I have already indicated, there are distinctions between the things you seek to cast as being the same, which there is no need to spend more time on.
As for the pseudophedrine drugs, you now intend to create an argument with a hypothetical involving the potential misuse of a drug which still is sold over the counter in many parts of the country. Try to confine your unconvincing argument to the facts at hand. (And since we are discussing a controversy specific to the state of Washington, you should be aware that here, your hypothetical becomes even tougher to maintain, as pharmacists HAVE to dispense such medications, even though no prescription is required, have to limit the siz4e of the purchase, and have to log the purchase in a dedicated log book, and take down information from your driver’s license when they do it. And if two people in you household are using it at the same time, and you have to purchase more before they think you should? Prepare to answer a lot more questions. The good news is that it has reduced the number of domestic meth labs, which I hope that even you can admit is a good thing.)
You rarely fail to disappoint, Chin. In addition to being a poltroon when asked simple and direct questions, you do enjoy the role of pettifogger when you put in your two cents.
I am not ashamed to admit that I had to Google the definition of “pettifogger.”
Same with “poltroon.”
I guess I just don’t have a very advanced vocabulary when it comes to smack-talk. I need a “shit-talk definition of the day” memo pad, or something.
What a wonderful example of fascism. Now Graychin and Co. will dictate our consciences for us by determining the consequence.
How about something a little less radical? Like go to one of your infanticide proponents at Planned Parenthood? They love innocent death like you.
I am not ashamed to admit that I had to Google the definition of “pettifogger.”
Sorry. I was reading Adams on Adams last night, and pettifoggers were a constant complaint in his journals when he was practicing law.
Same with “poltroon.”
I guess I just don’t have a very advanced vocabulary when it comes to smack-talk. I need a “shit-talk definition of the day” memo pad, or something.
Now ‘poltroon’ I’ve liked since High School, and no there isn’t anything unusual about a kid in a very blue collar neighborhood using words like ‘poltroon’. Why do you ask?
graychin you raise the same argument that is often brought up in some form or another and ALWAYS fails for the same reason.
Like it or not pharmacists are part of the health care provider food chain. Because of this they are entitled to the same rights and protections as other providers,even if it inconveniences you and others.
This is a basic tenet that is readily seen in Catholic (or other religion) operated hospitals and clinics. Is it safe to assume you are against such entities?
In MA. we have a conscience clause in our books,so employment is not barred and pharmacists are allowed to say “sorry”. As a rule though the availability of contraception up to and including EC is readily available.
[...] wrote about this a while back, and I’m glad to see that the District Court has upheld its prior ruling in this matter. [...]