Insane: Judge orders OTC emergency contraception to all ages nationwide
One round of emergency contraceptives contains four to 12 times the dosage of a birth control pill.
The long-term effects of emergency contraception on the bodies of girls and women are as yet unknown.
At present we do know the Pill is composed of synthetic female steroids that are environmentally toxic, increase the risk of breast cancer, alter phermones, kill libido, and cause depression, anxiety, and mood disturbances.
And we know easy access to emergency contraception is used by men to exploit women. By extension it is easy to surmise men might use it to exploit girls they are sexually abusing.
And we also know that increased availability of emergency contraception has caused many women to use what was supposed to be “plan b” as “plan a” – their primary method of birth control, this despite its abysmal failure rate. Quoting the New York Times, June 5, 2012:
The pregnancy prevention rates are probably lower than scientists and pill makers originally thought, he said – in some studies as low as 52 percent for Plan B and 62 percent for Ella.
It is into this mix that Federal District Court Judge Edward Korman, a Reagan appointee and pictured right, ruled this morning that emergency contraception must be made available other the counter nationwide to all ages (and genders). From U.S. News & World Report:
In his decision, Korman… said he had hoped the FDA would make the pill available without age restriction after his 2009 decision.”It was my view that the decision whether to make Plan B available without a prescription regardless of age was one that should be made by the FDA … not by a federal district judge,” he said in his decision.
In 2011, President Barack Obama said that he supported the FDA’s decision to not make the pill available to people of all ages.
“[The FDA] could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old [that goes] into a drugstore, should be able – alongside bubble gum or batteries – to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect,” he said. “The question is can we have the confidence that [adolescents] would potentially use Plan B properly.”
Korman argued that Plan B “would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter” and the FDA’s argument that young people could misuse the drug was very “unpersuasive.” He said he believed the FDA was under pressure from the George W. Bush administration to keep the drug age-restricted and that the case “has proven to be particularly controversial because it involves access to emergency contraception for adolescents who should not be engaging in conduct that necessitates the use of such drugs.”
He said that, legally, the argument is invalid.
“The standards are the same for aspirin and for contraceptives,” he said. “The standard for determining whether contraceptives or any other drug should be available over-the-counter turns solely on the ability of the consumer to understand how to use the particular drug ‘safely and correctly.'”
All I can say is this is insane. How ludicrous to call these pills “among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter” and to claim the Obama administration was somehow being hogtied by the ghost of the Bush administration.
[HT: LifeNews.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So let me get this straight…I have to prove that I’m over 18 to buy Robitussin DM but a 10 year old can buy the morning after pill?
That’s because they use cough syrup to OD and get high, and make meth in some cases. I don’t see why EC can’t be behind the counter too though. There’s no reason for someone that young to be able to access it on demand, and if older people aren’t grown up enough to ask the pharmacist for it without embarrassment, maybe they aren’t mature enough to have sex.
Yes, you are correct Kat. How does it feel to be relieved of the responsibility for the health of your teens and pre-teens? They can get powerful drugs and you will never have a clue—until you find them sick or dead some day from an adverse reaction.
Teeneage boys will be sure to have their girlfriends take these as a precaution. Statutory rapists will have another tool in their arsenal to conceal their deeds.
That’s because they use cough syrup to OD and get high, and make meth in some cases.
Harmful substances, not accepted by general society.
I don’t see why EC can’t be behind the counter too though.
Harmful substance, accepted as safe by society because they want to believe it’s safe, since pregnancy is apparently worse than death.
Can our STD rates get any higher?? It is one in four now…let’s go for one in two???
And what about the risk of blood clots etc. this is nuts…but hey everyone is having sex younger and younger…..God help us
…and the pharmacist who refuses to dispense plan B because of “moral objections” probably isn’t mature enough to be a pharmacist.
Lol I actually agree with that. Or at least they should work for a pharmacy that shares their beliefs.
Yes, BV, I can understand why you would be opposed to anyone having ethics in the workplace.
It’s more like I don’t think you can expect your workplace to ignore their responsibilities to their customers because of your ethics. I would expect to get fired if I got a job at Subway and then refused to make any sandwiches that had meat in them, I don’t know why it would be any different for pharmacists.
Abortion and abortifacients: a rapists’s best friends. Of course, Planned Parenthood et al. are excited about this. They love enabling rape and human trafficking:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3140AE82A4C8FB96
Jack, most drugs are designed to treat disease. If you object to medicine in general, you wouldn’t want to work at a pharmacy. However, many pharmacists are perfectly happy providing every drug or pill under the sun, but they may have strong moral objections to a drug they believe may cause early abortions. Should they be barred from the profession by the government for their belief? I’m not a fan of discrimination, but government should not have the power to force people to violate their conscience in service to another person; that’s servitude.
Should they be barred from the profession? No.
Should they seek employment at a Catholic hospital or something similar, where they know that they and their employer agree on what medications are moral? Si.
Like I said, I think any restaurant in the world has the right to fire me if I refuse to serve meat when it’s on the menu. If I want to work as a cook I need to find a restaurant that agrees with my ethics on the matter, a vegan or vegetarian restaurant would be great. I can’t get hired somewhere and demand everyone cater to my morals. That would be ridiculous.
Pharmacists shouldn’t be forced to provide what they find immoral. I do believe that employers should be allowed to fire them for their refusal though.
Because a couple of 14 year olds giggling in the pharmacy who are about to go engage in some behavior their parents shouldn’t even be allowing to happen are totally going to think about 10 or 15 years down the road when she doesn’t even remember the boy’s name anymore, is married with a toddler and drops dead from a stroke.
CHILDREN MAKE GREAT DECISIONS! THAT’S WHY THEY DON’T NEED PARENTS! lolwut?
I just got a job that is going to help with with tuition assistance to become a pharmacist. I personally have no objection to filling someone’s prescription for EC (as long as they’re not a minor). However, if I worked with another pharmacist who DID have such qualms, I’d support them 100% in their right to refuse such things, and offer them to refer any customers requesting such things to me, since I don’t have a problem with it. Because having rights is pretty mature. I also don’t think my fellow pharmacist should be fired for having religious convictions.
Working in a gold mine for next to no pay is servitude. Getting drafted into war is servitude. Being incarcerated for a non-violent offense is servitude. Dispensing a drug that might prevent a blastocyst from implanting is really, really not in the same class.
“Statutory rapists will have another tool in their arsenal to conceal their deeds.”
Statutory rapists, who are, by definition, adults, couldn’t have already just bought emergency contraception themselves and then administered it to the underage girls they were raping?
Oh but Megan you can’t force people to go against their conscience like that. Do you agree that pharmacists should have the right to refuse to dispense the medications, but employers should have the right to not hire them or fire them for refusing?
Oops, trivialized my opponent’s concerns, hypocrite I am.
I do believe that employers should be allowed to fire them for their refusal though.
Then you don’t believe in conscience protection or true religious freedom. Thank goodness you’re not in politics.
” Then you don’t believe in conscience protection or true religious freedom. Thank goodness you’re not in politics.”
Okay, so I can get a job at Outback and refuse to serve steak, and they can’t fire me right? I mean, if you say that I can be fired for that, obviously you don’t believe in true conscience protection or true freedom.
That refusal is more permissible in places that have other employees who can complete the transaction (without humiliating the customer), but what about in remote areas, when sometimes only one person is working the counter?
I thought you guys were all pro-business owners deciding how to run their businesses, and the employees have to obey or not work there. Right? Or does that only apply when Catholic business don’t want to have insurance policies that cover birth control?
To clear up some blatant factual innacuracy thats being repeated here– Estrogen is the hormone in birth control pills that can increase the risk of stroke, blood clot, embolism, etc.
Emergency contraception does NOT contain estrogen. It contains high doses of a hormone called progestin (aka Levonorgestrel), and the FDA has not found A SINGLE MEDICAL CONDITION that would conraindicate it’s use.
There are no side effects from EC other than changes in the menstrual period and occasionally some nausea, and it would be nearly impossible to “overdose” and take enough of the medication to have any negative affects on the body.
In fact, overdose of Tylenol is far more likely and would be far more serious and possibly fatal.
I fully support anyone who would not want to choose emergency contraception for their own use, but the argument that it is medically dangerous to minors– to ANY women– is untrue. Unless you support making ALL medications available to minors only by prescription, that argument is simply illogical.
So, pharmacists who have an objection to dispensing medication that has the express purpose of killing a human being (which is NOT necessarily a religious belief; see http://secularprolife.org) are forced to kill the human beings or quit their jobs?
Forcing an employer to financially subsidize recreational sex and/or drugs that kill human beings is a bit different than forcing your employee to be complicit in killing human beings.
Any employee who wants to use birth control or EC is welcome to do so — but their employer shouldn’t be forced to pay for it.
Any person who wants to kill their children via Plan B can currently do so — but employees shouldn’t be forced to be complicit in it.
Jack, if your chosen career field is the food industry and you have a moral objection to meat, yes, I still believe there should be a place for you in the industry and that your career should not be restricted to vegetarian restaurants, which might not exist anywhere near where you live. And in fact, many of the positions at a steak house could still be fulfilled by you. Bartender, busing tables, working the salad and veggie line in the kitchen, seating guests, etc.
“I thought you guys were all pro-business owners deciding how to run their businesses, and the employees have to obey or not work there.”
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m pro-conscience protection and religious freedom. For both employers and employees.
JoAnna, emergency contraception’s main effect is to delay ovulation. If a woman has already ovulated it’s effectiveness has been shown to be possibley NOTHING. Ultimately If a woman is already pregnant the medication will NOT have any affect, and certainly will NOT end the pregnancy.
Where does the argument that it ends human lives come from?
The sale of all contraceptives (including morning after pills) should be linked and restricted to those over the age of consent for sexual activity. If the age of consent varies from state-to-state so should the age that is required in order to purchase contraceptives. The laws of land should not contradict one another. They should be consistent – is that too much to expect?
Well, Amy, let’s look at the main webpage for the drug ella.
“ella may also work by preventing attachment to the uterus” — a.k.a. killing a human being via early abortion.
Those who claim that EC does not cause abortion also believe that life begins at implantation, which is scientifically inaccurate.
“Jack, if your chosen career field is the food industry and you have a moral objection to meat, yes, I still believe there should be a place for you in the industry and that your career should not be restricted to vegetarian restaurants, which might not exist anywhere near where you live. And in fact, many of the positions at a steak house could still be fulfilled by you. Bartender, busing tables, working the salad and veggie line in the kitchen, seating guests, etc. ”
I’m talking about being hired as a cook (analogous to hiring someone as a pharmacists, not a tech or a janitor at a pharmacy). You really think the restaurant shouldn’t be allowed to decide I’m not a good fit?
Look, I get that conscience rights are important, but I think employers have the right to run their businesses the way that they see fit (within legalities, of course). I don’t think anyone should be required to employ someone who refuses to fulfill all the functions of their job. The employees shouldn’t have to do something they are morally opposed to, but they don’t get a guaranteed job if they refuse to perform job functions.
Like you guys say, if someone doesn’t want to work at a place that won’t provide contraception insurance, then they should find another job. Likewise, if someone doesn’t like their job functions, then they should find another job. Go work for a Catholic hospital’s pharmacy or talk to an employer about allowing them not to fulfill certain prescriptions.
CT (who is Catholic I believe) and I had a similar discussion the other day. We agreed that businesses can’t decide to discriminate against someone for what they are (like, you can’t refuse to serve or hire me because I’m not religious or because someone is gay), but you can decide not to hire/serve someone for actions that you don’t agree with (a Christian caterer shouldn’t be required to serve a gay wedding). I think the same kind of principle applies here. A business can’t not hire me because I’m a vegetarian, or you because you are a Catholic, but they should be able to fire me for actions like refusing to perform job duties (as long as these objectional duties were part of the job description from the get-go).
Like you guys say, if someone doesn’t want to work at a place that won’t provide contraception insurance, then they should find another job.
Here’s the thing. Catholic employers are not saying that employees cannot acquire or use contraception/EC/MAP while employees of the organization. The employers are saying they don’t want to be forced by law to PAY for it.
Just like pharmacists are not saying that customers cannot acquire or use EC or MAPs. They just decline to be a party to providing someone with drugs that have, as their express purpose and end goal, the death of an innocent human being.
Pharmacists, like doctors, are often in their field because they want to help preserve and improve life, not end it. The job description of a pharmacist should not include “dispensing drugs that have the express purpose of killing an innocent human being.”
Like you guys say, if someone doesn’t want to work at a place that won’t provide contraception insurance, then they should find another job.
And what about when our government decides that, effectively, no such place will exist?
“That refusal is more permissible in places that have other employees who can complete the transaction (without humiliating the customer), but what about in remote areas, when sometimes only one person is working the counter”
Blue, since when do people in cities have more rights than people in rural areas? Forcing someone to “volunteer” to do something against their beliefs is servitude. Sure, it’s not nearly on the same scale as chattel slavery. I don’t believe however someone is entitled to birth control, or food, or any such good that requires another human being to produce it for them, not under the law. Shame away hoarders or rich misers, but once you say they must be forced to do something for you by government authority, you concede the point that you can be forced to do something for them.
You know what I’m totally for? The contraception mandate.
Oh wait, I’m not. And never have been Lrning, which you should know. The same reason I’m against the mandate is why I’m against employees being able to refuse to perform job functions and retain their jobs against the wishes of the business owner.
Citizens are restricted from harming other citizens. Subjects are forced to do things by civil authorities. The only exceptions we make are taxes and national defense, common goods which are as old as history itself.
JoAnna, I don’t really care why people don’t want to dispense certain medications. The fact is that you are talking about forcing businesses to employ people who don’t want to perform the job functions they signed up for, which is wrong. It’s just as wrong as forcing Catholic businesses to pay for things they don’t agree with.
Saying that an employee has to perform their job functions or be fired isn’t slavery, Chris. If the employee was forced to go against their conscience and was not allowed to seek a different job, then that would be slavery.
I can’t believe I’m arguing with conservatives over whether or not a business has hiring and firing rights lol.
I’m against employees being able to refuse to perform job functions and retain their jobs against the wishes of the business owner.
And I am mostly as well, just not absolutely. So I don’t think a pharmacist should be required to dispense medications that are morally problematic for them. And I don’t think nurses should be forced to assist in sterilizations or abortions if they are morally problematic for them. And I don’t think doctors should be forced to prescribe a drug that is morally problematic for them. And yet, I think all these people should be able to find employment outside the Catholic health system. Because that’s what free exercise of religion is about. The freedom to live your religion in this country, not in some restricted areas of society where you won’t get in the way.
““ella may also work by preventing attachment to the uterus” — a.k.a. killing a human being via early abortion.”
Joanna, the emphasis in that sentence should be on the word MAY. When emergency contraception begun to be used it was theorized that prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg was part of the action of the drug. Recent studies have shown that is highly unlikely to be the case; as I stated above, emergency contraception is only likely to prevent ovulation.
To quote the link below: “Among women who took EC before ovulation, none became pregnant. The women who took EC on the day of ovulation or after became pregnant at the rate that would be expected if they hadn’t used any contraception. This provides compelling evidence that levonorgestrel EC works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation, but is ineffective after ovulation has already occurred (and therefore would not be effective in preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg).”
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/06/15/2012/emergency-contraception-how-it-works-how-it-doesn-t.html?audience=4&series=23#path/blogs/06/15/2012/emergency-contraception-how-it-works-how-it-doesn-t.html?audience=4&series=23
The likelihood of emergency contraception interfering with implantation is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, yet you still continue to use it as an argument.
The free exercise clause protects you from government interference, just like free speech laws to protect you from government censure. They don’t mean that private business can’t decide that your beliefs are not a good for for their business. The rest of the private sector isn’t required to cater to your morals, or mine, or anyone else’s.
Obviously, there needs to be reasonable restrictions, as making it illegal to not hire someone because of something they are, like being christian or gay or whatever. But I don’t agree that business owners have to hire or retain someone who refuses to do the job they signed up for, no matter the reason.
Sorry about the typos my phone hates me.
Use of ella is contraindicated during an existing or suspected pregnancy.
There are no adequate and well controlled studies in pregnant women.
Ulipristal acetate was administered repeatedly to pregnant rats and rabbits during the period of organogenesis. Embryofetal loss was noted in all pregnant rats and in half of the pregnant rabbits following 12 and 13 days of dosing, at daily drug exposures 1/3 and 1/2 the human exposure, respectively, based on body surface area (mg/m2). There were no
malformations of the surviving fetuses in these studies. Adverse effects were not observed in the offspring of pregnant rats administered ulipristal acetate during the period of organogenesis through lactation at drug exposures 1/24 the human
exposure based on AUC. Administration of ulipristal acetate to pregnant monkeys for four days during the first trimester caused pregnancy termination in 2/5 animals at daily drug exposures 3 times the human exposure based on body surface area.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/022474s000lbl.pdf
Jack, we’re not talking about standard business practices here, we are talking about court rulings and federal mandates. Blue seemed to imply any pharmacist, and presumably the owner of a pharmacy should be required to adhere to this ruling. Also I was touching on how generally many people in society have begun to believe that they are entitled to goods and services, rather than respect of their rights and equal treatment under the law. I don’t believe the two can exist together in harmony.
The likelihood of emergency contraception interfering with implantation is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, yet you still continue to use it as an argument.
I’m not. ella is. Look at their website. If these studies are so incontrovertible, why does ella still have that statement on the main page of their website? Are the makers of ella lying?
If there is any chance whatsoever that ella will cause an innocent child to die — any chance at all — then pharmacists should not be required to dispense it.
“If there is any chance whatsoever that ella will cause an innocent child to die — any chance at all — then pharmacists should not be required to dispense it.”
You’re absolutely right. I fully and unequivocally support the rights of pharmaceutical workers to seek new employment opportunities if they can’t fulfill the obligations of their current jobs.
Joanna, I can’t help but find it amusing that you’re quoting the website of the manugacturer of a drug you think “kills human beings” as the backup to argument.
You’d typically accuse such companies as being money-hungry and untrustworthy; you’d normally even go so far as to say they exploit children to make a buck. You’d normally never trust a word they say.
But suddenly when it backs up your argument they’re valiant defenders of truth, eh? Funny how that works. ;)
A pharmacist is obligated to dispense drugs that, as their purpose, kill innocent human beings? Do tell.
Well, Amy, if ella is lying on their website, then I guess that proves they are untrustworthy.
If ella is not lying on their website, it proves your assertion wrong that EC does not cause early abortions.
So, which is it?
I’d hardly say they’re lying; the quote on their site is that it MAY prevent implantation. There’s no scientific evidence to prove that it’s absolutely a certainty of the drug’s action and affect on the body, so they don’t quote it to be a certainty.
Why do you take it to be a certainty?
“A pharmacist is obligated to dispense drugs that, as their purpose, kill innocent human beings? Do tell.”
I don’t know. I don’t run a pharmacy. If I did and one of my employees refused to dispense a particular drug that I lawfully sell, they would be replaced.
This was settled thru the Illinois Supreme Court according to a KWACdotcom article dated Dec. 20, 2012. The article also refers to a 2nd case, “In 2007, a case between Walgreens and a group of former employees ruled those pharmacists had the right to deny filling the medications because of their ‘conscientious rights.’ ”
Pharmacists Win Battle Against Emergency Contraceptives.
Amy, “may” is enough for me. If a construction company is about to demolish a condemned house, and they’re told that there “may” be an innocent child hiding inside, then they have a responsibility not to demolish the house until they’ve determined no innocent children will be killed if they do so.
Like I said, if these studies have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that EC does not kill children, why does ella still have that statement on the main page of their website?
Who ensures that the pharmaceutical company is not bribing the judge?
“Who ensures that the pharmaceutical company is not bribing the judge?”
I don’t know, who ensures one party isn’t bribing the judge in every other case in the country?
“This was settled thru the Illinois Supreme Court according to a KWACdotcom article dated Dec. 20, 2012. The article also refers to a 2nd case, “In 2007, a case between Walgreens and a group of former employees ruled those pharmacists had the right to deny filling the medications because of their ‘conscientious rights.’ ”
Pharmacists Win Battle Against Emergency Contraceptives.”
Sweet, I’m moving to Illinois and putting my application in to Outback Steakhouse. I’m using this case as a precedent, when they try to fire me for not cooking what’s on the menu I’ll be all “no mah conscientious rights!”
“Jack, we’re not talking about standard business practices here, we are talking about court rulings and federal mandates. Blue seemed to imply any pharmacist, and presumably the owner of a pharmacy should be required to adhere to this ruling. Also I was touching on how generally many people in society have begun to believe that they are entitled to goods and services, rather than respect of their rights and equal treatment under the law. I don’t believe the two can exist together in harmony.”
I think any employee should have to adhere to the business practices of their employer if they want to keep their job. That’s equal treatment under the law, in my opinion. Employers shouldn’t have to employ someone who isn’t going to perform some basic functions of their job. There should be no federal mandate allowing employees to not perform some duties that are a part of their job, and the employers shouldn’t have to just suck it up. It’s not right.
How did this get to conscience rights and ella anyway? I thought the ruling was about minors getting Plan B over the counter.
So Jack, if my boss tells me on Monday that I’m required to kill innocent children as a small part of my job, I should suck it up and do it or find another place to work?
“So Jack, if my boss tells me on Monday that I’m required to kill innocent children as a small part of my job, I should suck it up and do it or find another place to work?”
Your employer can require you to do legal things within the bounds of your profession and if you refuse you can get fired. That’s how it should work.
Why is your “right” to keep your job as a pharmacist while refusing to dispense contraception any more important than my “right” to keep my job as a cook while refusing to serve meat products that are on the menu?
“How did this get to conscience rights and ella anyway? I thought the ruling was about minors getting Plan B over the counter.”
We like to wonder around in our discussions here. I mean, a post about lawmakers receiving death threats somehow turned into a conversation about whether or not bodily autonomy trumps all other rights. (it doesn’t) So yeah, we don’t like to stay on topic around here.
Ella is a type of emergency contraception, so it’s pretty relevant to the topic.
Does anyone believe that a Jehovah’s Witness doctor has the right to insist on keeping a job as an ER physician, even if she states she isn’t going to perform blood transfusions? Should the hospital be required to employ her in that position?
Jack, that’s a great question and I’m curious to see the answers presented here.
Id also like to posit another scenario: what about a health teacher in a public school who refused to participate in abstinence only education? Should they be excused from having to do it and keep their job?
Thanks for bringing up that point, Jack. I was a little on the fence about it, but that really helped clarify it for me.
I used to work at Wal-Mart as a cashier. One day, a woman came through my line to purchase a perfectly legal dose of rat poison. In a friendly manner, I started talking to her about how live traps or even spring traps are starting to be seen as preferable to rat poison because a bunch of unintended consequences of rat poison in the environment are showing up. Like, dead birds of prey and children getting ill from being bitten by snakes that aren’t supposed to even be venomous. She became brisk with me and apparently reported me to my supervisor because I was reprimanded afterwards.
I quit, because I didn’t want to help sell things that are so overtly poisoning wildlife, house pets, and adding risks to the outdoors for my children anymore. It’s still their right to sell it, and my right to quit selling it for them.
Basically, if your daughter listens to your guidance as a parent, you shouldn’t have any problem.
But the daughters of others are none of your business.
Right. Because I’m sure this decision was made because so many people were sending their 13 year olds down to the corner drug store for MAPs and getting turned away. 9_9
AS IF this has anything to do with acknowledging parental authority rather than trying to thwart and subvert it.
Interesting article by Christianity Today on the split between people and the question of ‘does plan B cause abortions”.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/may/does-plan-b-cause-abortion.html
I’m curious, xalisae. If the woman had said she was pregnant, and planning to use the rat poison to attempt to induce an abortion, would you still have sold it to her? What if she’d said she was going to use it to spike her husband’s soup because a divorce was too expensive?
Me, if I knew she was going to use that rat poison kill another person, I would have refused to sell it – my job be damned. And if I were your manager, I’d support your right not to see rat poison that you were told was expressly intended to kill another person.
That seems to be the dilemma that pro-life pharmacists find themselves in. Abortifacient drugs are unique from other drugs dispensed by pharmacies because they have a unique goal – to kill an unborn child if his/her conception is not prevented. You can’t say the same with, say, Xanax or Zofran or Oxycotin or Vicodin. They all have legitimate purposes. Plan B and etc are different.
Yes, I believe that JWs can and should work in the medical field as long as there is adequate staffing of other medical personnel available to perform the blood transfusion, if one was needed. Just like I believe that Catholics who work in secular hospitals should not be forced to perform abortions or assist performing them.
Yes, I believe that teachers should be able to refuse to participate in abstinence-only education if they have a moral objection to it. I can’t see what is morally wrong with teaching kids that abstinence is the only 100% surefire way of preventing STDs and pregnancy, but whatever.
So you think people of certain beliefs should have special rights, more than the rest of us, then, JoAnna?
Using rat poison to induce an abortion is illegal in the US, as is killing your husband. I am sure Xalisae would call the police in that instance.
Another reason why abortion should be illegal, I believe.
I’m curious, xalisae. If the woman had said she was pregnant, and planning to use the rat poison to attempt to induce an abortion, would you still have sold it to her? What if she’d said she was going to use it to spike her husband’s soup because a divorce was too expensive?
Now you’re just being insulting. Everyone who disagrees with you does not support legal abortion. If she said she was going to take the rat poison to kill her child or husband, I’d not only have refused to sell it to her, but I’d also have reported her to the authorities.
Plan B does have legitimate medical purpose, it can prevent conception, doesn’t necessarily interfere with implantation.
I think conscience rights, whether or not they are based on religious beliefs (opposition to abortion is not necessarily a religious belief), should be respected, yes. As U.S. citizens, we’re not required to only practice our faith on Sundays, or leave our faith at the door of the house when we leave for work.
The rat poison analogy is useful, because that’s essentially how pharmacists see abortifacient drugs (except that it’s lawful to use them to kill children).
They MAY prevent implantation, Jack. Even the makers of the drugs admit that. They can’t say with 100% certainty that those drugs will never kill a child, hence the disclaimer on the websites and in the pill packaging itself.
Then you’ll support me in my bid to be a vegetarian chef at Outback right? Why will no one answer that question? Is it because it’s ridiculous? Of course it’s ridiculous, to think I have the right to demand employment when I know full well I won’t carry out the function of my job.
Car manufacturers can’t say with any certainty that their products won’t kill a child either.
And btw, if a Catholic pharmacist signs a contract with an employer saying that she doesn’t have to dispense EC/birth control I am all for it. She just can’t demand employment if she isn’t going to perform the duties.
Jack and xalisae, what would you say about hospital nurses that are forced to assist in an abortion on the grounds that “[they] just have to catch the baby’s head” and not to worry because “it’s already dead”? Abortion is currently a level medical procedure, so you don’t really have grounds for being against this.
I do understand what you’re trying to say. If employees could play the conscientious objection card whenever they didn’t want to do something that’s in their job description, you could conceivably have employees that don’t do anything at all (yet can’t be removed from the payroll because that would be discrimination). But it is difficult to know how to draw the line.
BV and Jack,
Pharmacists follow their own judgment and conscience all the time when filling prescriptions and advising clients. A pharmacist can refuse to fill your prescription for any number of reasons. He/she can also call the police if suspicious of you. A pharmacist can refuse to sell you a product they know will harm you or if they have serious reservations about a doctor prescribing it for you. So what is your issue with a pharmacist exercising freedom of conscience on EC?
First of all, the pharmacy does not have to hire the pharmacist. Or they can have enough people that it will not cause a problem or the pharmacy owner may share the convictions, religious or otherwise of the pharmacist they hire and agree that EC is not to be sold at their pharmacy. Like it or not, that is still a business owner’s right.
Jack, your analogy of Outback and Subway sandwiches doesn’t wash. First of all, if you are a dedicated vegetarian/vegan, wouldn’t you inform your employer of this? The employer would then have the option not to hire you or he/she could assign you to an area where your convictions would not be violated. Maybe the Outback or Subway owner has a vegan/vegetarian menu or wants to attract more clientele by offering one. He/she might have you manage this area. No customer would be denied their steak dinner or salami subway, and you would not have to violate your convictions.
Also, you could open your own business and tell a customer you do not sell meat or animal products of any kind. The customer may get irate, tell you how inconvenienced they are, and storm out of your store. Did you just force your convictions on that customer?
I guess so, Jack. But it’s not an exact analogy because you don’t start working at a steakhouse not realizing or knowing that meat will be prepared and served as part of doing business. But let’s say you start as a carnivore and then become a fervent adherent of veganism and a charter member of the local PETA, but, for some reason, you still want to work at Outback and have no problem working around meat as long as you don’t have to prepare it. I’d imagine that there are many other jobs you could fulfill that wouldn’t involve preparing meat, such as preparing only meatless dishes, or bartending, or cleaning up, or working the front desk as a host.
A better analogy, honestly, would be that a Catholic shouldn’t apply for a job at Planned Parenthood if they have an objection to killing babies and dispensing contraception. But working at a pharmacy which dispenses thousands upon thousands of drugs every day, 99.9% of which are not intended (as their direct, explicit, advertised purpose) to kill innocent children, seems like a different situation.
Many of the pharmacists working today started working at their jobs before EC and MAP was available. And in comparison, you have a much higher probability of preparing steak at a steakhouse than you do having to fill a prescription for MAP or EC as a pharmacist. I can’t imagine the number of prescriptions that go through a single pharmacy in any given day, but I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of them aren’t for EC and MAP.
If I were a nurse, I would be sure to make sure that it was part of my employment contract that I didn’t have to assist in abortions in anyway. I wouldn’t get hired on somewhere and think I could object after the fact.
Like I said, another reason abortions should be illegal.
Also, no one has the right to “demand” employment. Most (all?) states are right-to-work states, which means an employer can fire me if he doesn’t like the color of my shirt or the way I do my hair in the morning.
If only it were that easy, Jack: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/do-abortions-or-get-fired-hospital-told-nurses-lawsuit/
Jack,
Cars aren’t manufactured with the direct, explicit, and intended purpose of killing an innocent child.
“Pharmacists follow their own judgment and conscience all the time when filling prescriptions and advising clients. A pharmacist can refuse to fill your prescription for any number of reasons. He/she can also call the police if suspicious of you. A pharmacist can refuse to sell you a product they know will harm you or if they have serious reservations about a doctor prescribing it for you. So what is your issue with a pharmacist exercising freedom of conscience on EC?”
A pharmacist can refuse to fill prescriptions based on patient concerns, not religious, I don’t have a problem with that. He can’t refuse to fill my anti-depressants because he’s a Scientologist and thinks that they are wrong. Or at least he shouldn’t be able to. Unless he owns the business and refuses to fill prescriptions for those types of prescriptions overall.
“First of all, the pharmacy does not have to hire the pharmacist. Or they can have enough people that it will not cause a problem or the pharmacy owner may share the convictions, religious or otherwise of the pharmacist they hire and agree that EC is not to be sold at their pharmacy. Like it or not, that is still a business owner’s right.”
I’m fine with all that, which I have said multiple times. If the owner doesn’t want to prescribe certain meds, or wants to allow their employee to object, that’s fine. What I am arguing against is people thinking that an employer shouldn’t have the right to fire an employee for not fulfilling their job duties.
“Jack, your analogy of Outback and Subway sandwiches doesn’t wash. First of all, if you are a dedicated vegetarian/vegan, wouldn’t you inform your employer of this? The employer would then have the option not to hire you or he/she could assign you to an area where your convictions would not be violated. Maybe the Outback or Subway owner has a vegan/vegetarian menu or wants to attract more clientele by offering one. He/she might have you manage this area. No customer would be denied their steak dinner or salami subway, and you would not have to violate your convictions.”
Yup, I would be upfront with this. If they didn’t want to hire me, fine. If they wanted to retain my services in a non-meat serving way then cool. I wouldn’t have the right to be hired on to cook a full menu and then claim I’m just not going to, and expect to keep my job.
And like I said a million times, the business owner can decide not to have certain activities, whatever they are, take place.
JoAnna – one note on that – I looked up the case – at least by what I found, nobody was forced to perform abortions. Nurses were told to provide care to women before and after abortions – for instance, taking blood pressure.
Case was settled – the nurses don’t have to perform any pre or post care to an abortive mother.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/umdnj_settles_with_nurses_over.html
“Also, no one has the right to “demand” employment. Most (all?) states are right-to-work states, which means an employer can fire me if he doesn’t like the color of my shirt or the way I do my hair in the morning.”
Then are you cool with people not hiring Catholic pharmacists based on their religion?
“Cars aren’t manufactured with the direct, explicit, and intended purpose of killing an innocent child.”
Neither are contraceptives or the morning after pill.
“If only it were that easy, Jack: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/do-abortions-or-get-fired-hospital-told-nurses-lawsuit/”
I don’t see anything here that says that these nurses signed any sort of contract stating that they would not assist in abortions, or preform pre- or post-abortion care. So it’s not a direct analogy to what I was saying, that a Catholic or otherwise anti-contraceptive pharmacist should make sure that their terms of employment state that they don’t have to dispense those medications.
Yeah. Only 2/5 pregnancies lost after being administered THREE TIMES the recommended human dosage on other primates is well-within the margin of error, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve said it before, but if you anti-MAP/EC people are so worried about implantation failure, you should start pitching in for anti-stress PSAs, petitioning to ban coffee (or at least put warning labels on caffeinated beverages “WARNING: MAY INHIBIT IMPLANTATION BY ALTERING THE ENDOMETRIUM”), etc. But you guys don’t. I mean, it’s proven that caffeine constricts blood vessels, and that would include blood vessels in the endometrium. Where is all the hand-wringing?!
Thanks for that article, Ex-RINO.
JoAnna – one note on that – I looked up the case – at least by what I found, nobody was forced to perform abortions. Nurses were told to provide care to women before and after abortions – for instance, taking blood pressure.
I don’t see why that should satisfy a nurse objecting to abortion on ethical grounds. If you give someone a gun knowing ahead of time that they’re going to use it to kill someone, or help them conceal the body afterward, I think you still are morally responsible for aiding them even though you didn’t actually perform the deed yourself.
Case was settled – the nurses don’t have to perform any pre or post care to an abortive mother.
Even if it’s only a hypothetical case, I think it’s plausible enough to serve an instructive purpose.
The abortion industry is of course fine with all of this because when sex predators are not found out due to getting young girls pregnant, they are more free to do their work, including turning girls to prostitution. This in turn means more abortions and abortion money for the industry. And this so-called judge wants this to be legal.
There are at least seven instances of Planned Parenthood offering support to sex predators in their evil work, documented here in these Live Action videos:
http://www.liveaction.org/traffick/
“I guess so, Jack. But it’s not an exact analogy because you don’t start working at a steakhouse not realizing or knowing that meat will be prepared and served as part of doing business. But let’s say you start as a carnivore and then become a fervent adherent of veganism and a charter member of the local PETA, but, for some reason, you still want to work at Outback and have no problem working around meat as long as you don’t have to prepare it. I’d imagine that there are many other jobs you could fulfill that wouldn’t involve preparing meat, such as preparing only meatless dishes, or bartending, or cleaning up, or working the front desk as a host.”
If my employer wished to give me a different job if I became a vegetarian after being hired for a different job, that’s awesome. If they wished to fire me instead of offering me alternate employment, then that’s their right because they hired me to perform functions that I now refuse to perform.
“Many of the pharmacists working today started working at their jobs before EC and MAP was available. And in comparison, you have a much higher probability of preparing steak at a steakhouse than you do having to fill a prescription for MAP or EC as a pharmacist. I can’t imagine the number of prescriptions that go through a single pharmacy in any given day, but I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of them aren’t for EC and MAP.”
It’s not about probability, it’s about the employer’s right to remove an employee who isn’t performing a job function. Honestly I wouldn’t object to a “grandfather” clause for pharmacists who got hired before the availability of MAP and EC (though didn’t those same pharmacists have an opposition to birth control?). But in general, I do think that it should be fine to fire someone who doesn’t perform a job function, no matter the reason (unless their contract specifically states that they don’t have to perform it).
Jack, EC is manufactured for the direct purpose of preventing pregnancy. According to its manufacturers (whom I would hope know how their product works), it has two mechanisms to do this: preventing ovulation, or preventing implantation. The latter mechanism kills a child. That is its direct, explicit purpose, should the primary mechanism fail to work. And other abortion drugs are specifically meant to cause an abortion even after implantation occurs.
X, I’m pregnant for the 7th time (13w3d, currently). I’ve had coffee with all of my pregnancies. I have had two miscarriages, but my neither my doctor nor my midwife believed that my one cup of coffee per day had anything to do with my losses. Plus, based on the available evidence, you’d need to drink something like 7 cups in one setting to have a negative effect, and coffee isn’t intended to be consumed in those amounts (pregnant or not!).
As for the lawsuit I mentioned above, here are some direct quotes from the complaint:
In this case, thankfully, justice prevailed. But if all conscience protections are removed from state and/or federal law, as you propose, Jack, then these nurses would have been fired. Do you think that is just?
Also, I’d like to thank Amy for clearing up what exactly is in the MAP/EC pill. It was my understanding that it was just an ultra-high dose of regular contraceptive, complete with clot-causing estrogen. I have less of a problem with it for that reason, now, but as a parent, I still think it’s not something that should be available to my children without my approval or knowledge.
X, I’m pregnant for the 7th time (13w3d, currently). I’ve had coffee with all of my pregnancies.
Great. And people get pregnant, stay pregnant, and giver birth to healthy babies all the time after taking MAP/EC, too.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/03/17/study-morning-after-pill-doesnt-work/
“Jack, EC is manufactured for the direct purpose of preventing pregnancy. According to its manufacturers (whom I would hope know how their product works), it has two mechanisms to do this: preventing ovulation, or preventing implantation. The latter mechanism kills a child. That is its direct, explicit purpose, should the primary mechanism fail to work. And other abortion drugs are specifically meant to cause an abortion even after implantation occurs.”
I don’t care about the “preventing pregnancy” part. The primary mechanism isn’t killing anything, and there is a tiny chance that an implantation could possibly be prevented. Just like there are plenty of other products, including some natural herbs, that could possibly prevent an implantation. I don’t consider any of that, a minute chance that an implantation could be prevented, a good reason to criminalize anything. I do respect your right to believe differently and refuse to involve yourself in the sale of such substances. You should not sell parsley and vitamin C either.
“In this case, thankfully, justice prevailed. But if all conscience protections are removed from state and/or federal law, as you propose, Jack, then these nurses would have been fired. Do you think that is just?”
Well, justice can never never be served in that instance because babies are still dying. I don’t believe that while abortion is legal though, that they should be able to refuse to perform services they were hired for. We can’t make special rules for some cases and not others, in my opinion.
I do not know why anyone would continue working in a hospital that performed abortions if they were that opposed to them, to be honest.
Again, another reason it’s very important to get abortion criminalized.
Great. And people get pregnant, stay pregnant, and giver birth to healthy babies all the time after taking MAP/EC, too.
Not if it works as intended.
Yes, all birth control has a failure rate, even those that purport to prevent implantation. So?
Jack, these nurses weren’t hired to perform abortions, or with the expectation that they would do so. Read the complaint.
As for parsley and vitamin C, when taken as intended, in normal recommended doses, they do not prevent implantation. Only when taken in extreme doses – NOT as intended – could be possibly pose a problem to pregnant women.
EC/MAP is different. When taken exactly as intended by the manufacturer, one of the mechanisms is to prevent implantation (and kill a child).
Hi Jack 7:36PM
A pharmacist’s objection to EC may not be religious, but ethical and professional.
A pharmacist enjoys the same religious freedom of anyone and should discuss this with his/her employer. If the pharmacist owns the business, its his/her decision. Also, I seriously doubt a Scientologist would be any more inclined to be a pharmacist than you would be to run a slaughterhouse.
Jack of course you wouldn’t be hired as cook for steaks and other meat products then be able to refuse to do your job. However you do have your right to freedom of conscience and so does the pharmacist. In both cases you are up front with the employer. If you are self employed it is your decision what you sell.
That’s my point.
The employees had a reasonable expectation to not be expected to take part in abortions, based on the policy of the institution when they were hired JoAnna. So, it’s a bit different than what we were talking about. We are talking about pharmacists, knowing full well that they might be required to dispense meds they don’t agree with, claiming that they don’t have to and also expecting to keep their jobs.
May @8:21, I don’t see how I have argued with anything in that post even once on this thread. The only thing I am arguing for is that employers should have the right to fire employees that don’t perform their job functions, even if they claim they don’t want to because it’s immoral to them.
You’re just skipping around the point anyway. Say I were a grill cook and then suddenly converted to vegetarianism. Should my employer be required to keep me employed, even though I’m not refusing to perform my job functions?
PLEASE read that article Ex-RINO posted, so you can stop this crap about MAP/EC “working as intended”, and you’ll see that no, that’s not what is intended with that, at all. Which is why it’s proving to be ineffective at preventing pregnancy.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/may/does-plan-b-cause-abortion.html
Teva Pharmaceuticals, the creators of Plan B (the “morning-after pill”) has repeatedly asked the FDA to remove its warning label that the drug “may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium [the inside lining of the uterus].” It increasingly is finding support within the medical research community.
The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, citing new research, declared last March that Plan B does not inhibit implantation but instead blocks fertilization. Germany’s Catholic bishops also cited the research in February, which prompted them to drop their opposition to using morning-after pills in Catholic hospitals for victims of rape.
In today’s court decision, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman cited the National Institutes of Health’s decision to remove from its website any suggestion that Plan B could affect implantation. The idea that the pill had such effects, Korman said, is “scientifically unsupported speculation.”
*now refusing to perform my job functions, in my last comment. I wish I could type.
So, X, is ella lying on their website when they state that it may prevent implantation?
In cases that involve the legalizing a product for consumption the government should hire someone to ensure that the manufacturing companies whose product is being litigated, especially if the manufacturers are very large, are not manipulating the outcome of the case. Very few companies have the money to bribe a company, but very large companies do.
I wish the proponents of oral contraception and the morning after pill would say what they think happens when a person uses these drugs. Do they have any science/evidence to back up their theory/speculation?
I don’t like it when scientists become involved in revisionist type science – something just smells bad.
The lengths people will go to have a clear conscience when they don’t believe in confession is astounding.
Hi Jack 8:26PM
I agree that employers can fire people for not doing the job they were hired to.
I was responding to your 5:40PM comments as well as your comparisons of a pharmacist refusing to dispense EC to your refusing to prepare meat.
What are you talking about Tyler @ 9:04pm?
” I agree that employers can fire people for not doing the job they were hired to.
I was responding to your 5:40PM comments as well as your comparisons of a pharmacist refusing to dispense EC to your refusing to prepare meat.”
Yup, I do believe me as an employed cook and someone as an employed pharmacist should have to abide by the job they were hired to do, unless their employer allows them to work something out. Otherwise they can find another job. I’m honestly quite flabbergasted that conservatives don’t agree with me, because they are so pro-business. Only pro-certain businesses I guess.
So, X, is ella lying on their website when they state that it may prevent implantation?
No. I think they were forced to put it there by fundamentalists in hysterics before all the information had been sufficiently gathered, hence the current desire to have it removed. Which brings me to my second point:
I don’t like it when scientists become involved in revisionist type science – something just smells bad.
There’s no such thing as “revisionist type science”. Good science is always willing to consider new information gathered over time, even if it negates an original hypothesis-which is really all the notion that “hormonal birth control/MAP/EC causes abortions” was, an alarmist hypothesis with very little to back it up. If you look at JUST the established-pregnancy-after-MAP/EC numbers that have been gathered within the last 10 years or so, it SHOWS that the original hypothesis has been proven incorrect!
when scientists already have a goal in mind they want to achieve before doing their research, such as declaring oral contraceptives as not being abortifacients, I think that the evidence that comes from such science to be highly suspect and that the label of “revisionist science” is quite appropriate.
A pharmaceutical company saying that oral contraceptives don’t kill babies, is like a pig farmer saying that the production of bacon doesn’t kill a pig.
“Bacon is premium filet mignon,” says the pig farmer.
“Say I were a grill cook and then suddenly converted to vegetarianism. Should my employer be required to keep me employed, even though I’m not refusing to perform my job functions?”
What you’re saying does not compare to a pharamist refusing to fill a prescription for contraception or morning after pills. I’m not an expert on restaurant jobs, but I think the grill cook is responsible for grilling meat. That’s basically their whole job or at least the main part of it. Filling prescriptions for contraception/morning after pills is not the main part of a pharmacist’s job. A pharmacist can still perform his job since there are thousands of other pills he can fill the prescription for. Therefore his employer doesn’t have to fire him for refusing to perform his job because he’s still doing it, even if he doesn’t deal with contraception/morning after pills. You, on the other hand, would be doing nothing at work since you can’t grill meat due to your vegetarianism. Therefore your employer would either fire or reassign you.
when scientists already have a goal in mind they want to achieve before doing their research, such as declaring oral contraceptives as not being abortifacients, I think that the evidence that comes from such science to be highly suspect and that the label of “revisionist science” is quite appropriate.
Great. But I’m not talking about scientists, and I’m not talking about pharmaceutical companies, and I’m not talking about studies, when you get down to brass tacks. I’m talking about health department numbers and NHS numbers over the last few years checking women who’ve been given MAP/EC and then looking at post-pill pregnancy and birth rates and them scratching their heads saying, “Whaaaa? That’s not aposed tah happin’! Dur-hur!” like a bunch of fools when it’s HAD NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE PREGNANCY/BIRTH/ABORTION RATES. That’s basic third-party unbiased evidence, and you guys just act like it’s not there because you’d rather keep yourself up nights hemming and hawing over how any given woman decides to contracept. But whatever. That’s not my bag, man. I’m just here to save real, actual, known children. Not theoretical Schrödinger’s babies.
I already answered that Vania, it’s in one of my comments. I’m not going to type the same thing out again.
No. I think they were forced to put it there by fundamentalists in hysterics before all the information had been sufficiently gathered.
…seriously? “Fundamentalists in hysterics” have the power to “force” uber-rich drug companies who are in league with Planned Parenthood to put false information on their website and in the packaging insert of their drugs?
Who are these people and why isn’t their candidate in the White House?
I have heard that some women don’t always take the pill when they are supposed to take it. Some miss a few days here and there – does that increase the chance of pregnancy?
Moreover, your third party “unbiased evidence” is anecdotal evidence and not very scientific. Getting pregnant while on the pill does not prove that the pill doesn’t cause the death of preborn children also. It merely states that in some instances for some women (non-diligent users?) have become pregnant. The only thing you have presented is an interesting observation. You have then overlaid that observation with an uncorrobated suspicion/assertion that the Pill doesn’t cause miscarriages/abortions. The two events, event A – Pregnancies while on the Pill and event B – abortions resulting from the Pill, do not have to be mutually exclusive. The Pill could cause abortions and permit pregnancies. Both of these events may simply mean that the Pill is both ineffective and defective.
If the Pill does kill babies then you would want to prevent the use of the Pill, right?
…seriously? “Fundamentalists in hysterics” have the power to “force” uber-rich drug companies who are in league with Planned Parenthood to put false information on their website and in the packaging insert of their drugs?
Yes. Because people are very fond of suing drug companies, and they were forced to protect their interests. Lawsuits don’t work as well to get to the White House, thankfully, or else we would’ve had to endure President Gore.
But with this plethora of scientific evidence to the contrary, allegedly proving that ella doesn’t cause abortions, why worry about lawsuits? And why would anyone sue if ella worked exactly the way it was intended (by killing an unborn child and thus terminating the pregnancy)?
Moreover, your third party “unbiased evidence” is anecdotal evidence and not very scientific. Getting pregnant while the pill does not prove that the pill doesn’t cause the death of preborn children. It merely states that in some instances for some women (diligent users?) have become pregnant. The only thing you have presented is interesting observation. You have then overlaid that observation with an uncorrobated suspicion/assertion that the Pill doesn’t cause miscarriages/abortions.
Except that Lrning further up the thread posted part of the primate study that actually did corroborate it, in my opinion. It’s like, even the stuff that corroborates it, you won’t let yourself see, and you think it backs up your position, for some reason.
I already addressed how I feel about studies that are bent on proving the innocence of the Pill – it is revisionist science.
If you don’t accept that the Pill aborts babies the most you can state is that there are conflicting studies on the subject.
However, once upon a time there wasn’t conflicting scientific opinions on the issue about the Pill’s abortifacient effect, and we are talking only a few years back, yet some prolife women most likely mistakenly took the Pill, and took the risk, and now these women may feel guilty for doing so?
“Schrödinger’s babies.”
LOL, I almost fell off my chair laughing at that one. :)
You’re talking about two completely different medications. Ella is used for the same purpose as Plan B (“morning after” birth control). However, its chemical composition is more like the abortifacient RU-486 because it acts as a progesterone antagonist. There’s a good overview here:
http://lti-blog.blogspot.ca/2010/08/ella-anti-plan-b-serge.html
http://lti-blog.blogspot.ca/2010/08/scientific-wishful-thinking-ellas.html
Once again, this story is about Plan B (which should be the least controversial of the three). It has nothing to do with ella.
The study lrning wrote about says that Ella is contraindicted for pregnant women – that means Ella does cause abortions – news flash – but you should know this.
Okay. Before I go ’round with you again, JoAnna, I’d just like to bring something back that got lost in the shuffle:
“Plus, based on the available evidence, you’d need to drink something like 7 cups in one setting to have a negative effect, and coffee isn’t intended to be consumed in those amounts (pregnant or not!).”
Okay. Assuming that 2 cups is around an average morning for most coffee drinkers, that means that it would take roughly THREE TIMES the normal coffee dose to start harming early pregnancy prospects. JUST LIKE-wait for it-IT TOOK THREE TIMES THE NORMAL HUMAN DOSE TO START IMPACTING PRIMATE PREGNANCIES WITH EC/MAP.
So…just waiting on you to start campaigning against coffee. Any day now. Don’t worry. I won’t hold my breath.
But with this plethora of scientific evidence to the contrary, allegedly proving that ella doesn’t cause abortions, why worry about lawsuits?
Because even frivolous lawsuits cost money. Lawyers don’t work for free.
And why would anyone sue if ella worked exactly the way it was intended (by killing an unborn child and thus terminating the pregnancy)?
Why do you keep saying that? Did you help to create ella? Were you in the lab, standing there, listening to the other researchers say, “Yes, surely this MUST prevent implantation, or else all our work is in VAIN!!!” because I doubt it. And everything the company has been through since people first started insisting the warning be put on contraceptives (which started a while back, and has mostly just been grandfathered over and is now being shown to be an incorrect assumption) is showing that that IS NOT what was in mind when the drug was created. Your continued chanting and assertion after assertion that that was the thinking behind it is duly noted and disregarded, thank you.
They were probably scared someone might have an extra-heavy period, freak out, and convince herself of something like you’ve been trying to force a meme for here, and they probably didn’t envy the task of trying to disprove a very early pregnancy had been aborted (because the research hadn’t been done yet) and that would be something that would be pretty difficult to do. Especially when something like just being under a bit more stress than usual or having a bout of the flu can do the same friggin’ thing, anyway.
someone is reading the report incorrectly….did someone miss the bold print and the first subsequent paragraph in Lrning’s post?
How long do you think it will take for some guy who doesn’t want a baby to slip 20 or so of these into a woman’s food/drink? I’m betting a week.
Can’t buy cigarettes but EC is A-Okay!
Someone apparently isn’t aware that men could buy EC/MAP already.
And I could dose anyone unsuspecting with all types of medications, doesn’t mean they should be illegal or unavailable.
Jack, I appreciate the self-restraint!!
I am proud of my remarkable amount of restraint I’ve shown on this thread, Tyler, thanks for noticing. ;)
Jack, I think I see it in one of your earlier responses where you say that a scientologist pharmacist shouldn’t be able to refuse filling your anti-depressants. So you don’t believe an employee should be able to refuse to perform certain parts of their job due to religious, moral, etc. objections, even if it’s not the main part of their job. That’s not the same as a vegetarian refusing to perform any part of the job, and then expecting to keep a job where they basically sit around and do nothing. I don’t know of any real life cases like that. Usually the religious/moral objection is to a portion of the job, and that part of the job can be performed by another person while the objector still performs their main function. I’m pro-life. I can’t get a job as an abortionist at planned parenthood and then refuse to perform abortions because I’m pro-life. Not only would it be stupid, I’d be a hypocrite. How can I say I’m pro-life yet seek a job performing abortions. Maybe I’m missing something, but it doesn’t make sense to seek or keep a job that you can’t do because you find it reprehensible.
Jack and I have coordinated our outbursts. There’s a schedule and everything. I’m MWF, he’s TTS, and Sundays we split during the month.
uh-oh –
what happens at midnight?
Perhaps I should make an exit before it is too late.
At midnight we turn into gay, contraception-using, atheist pumpkins.
no blue hair?
“So you don’t believe an employee should be able to refuse to perform certain parts of their job due to religious, moral, etc. objections, even if it’s not the main part of their job.”
Yes, I don’t think that an employer should be obligated to continue employing someone who refused to perform a function of their job, even a small one.
“. That’s not the same as a vegetarian refusing to perform any part of the job, and then expecting to keep a job where they basically sit around and do nothing. I don’t know of any real life cases like that”
It was a bad analogy, the grill cook. I meant more that if a certain portion of the dishes I was expected to make as a cook involved meat, it should be fine to fire me if I refused to make them.
I’ve explained my position on the matter as clearly as I can, I don’t really wish to repeat myself over and over.
I don’t have the blue hair or the tongue ring anymore, Tyler. I still have the nipple rings and tattoos though. Msg me for a pic bby.
I’ll pass on that.
Bwahahahahahaha I’m sorry Tyler, I’ll stop messing with you.
I think the transition is starting….we are getting close to Saturday.
He has even taken over the evil laugh!
Nite folks.
Nite, Tyler.
Jack, I think I understand what you mean, although I don’t agree with it. I got confused by the grill cook/vegetarian analogy. It’s fine if you don’t want to repeat it since you’ve spent a good portion of the thread arguing your case. We’d probably just end up going in circles anyway, which is (unfortunately) how I spend the majority on my time on the internet blogs.
Yeah, sorry Vania I don’t mean to sound snippy, I just don’t know what else I could say to explain my position you know?
And I know what you mean about going around and around on internet blogs, I feel like I’ve had the exact same three or so conversations over and over on this blog in the couple years I’ve commented here. Same old arguments over and over. It gets tiring.
It’s fine Jack. I thought you were more tired than snippy. You’re downright pleasant compared to most of the places I visit with a dissenting opinion.
I try to be as non-aggressive as I can be, I usually fail though lol.
Yes, I don’t think that an employer should be obligated to continue employing someone who refused to perform a function of their job, even a small one.
What if they work in a hospital and are told not to attempt to save the life of a baby, even a small one, who lived through an abortion procedure?
I already answered whether I think employers can require job responsibilities that are illegal on the threat of termination- they can’t. If an employee was put in that position I would hope that they would provide the care anyway and sue/get their employer in a lot of legal trouble.
I’m a little mixes on the plan B thing myself . I’ve taken it once but i had no symtoms. On the other hand a 31 year old friend of mine took it and was scared to death. Terrible cramping…painful enough to make her scream and clutch the sink while sitting on the toilet .throwing up sweating and shaking. I guess everyone is different and i do not agree with giving it to children .
Typos hate them…mixed!!
I will never take plan B again
Hey Jack, Would you advise an employee of a photography business to sue their employer if their employer fired them after they refused to photograph a gay ‘marriage’ ceremony? Let’s pretend the employer knew the photographer was Catholic when she was hired.
No I wouldn’t advise them to sue. If she didn’t want to perform a job she was assigned why do you think she should keep her job?
For the record, I don’t think that employers *should* fire people for religious objections to something. I wouldn’t fire someone for that reason, unless I couldn’t get the needed work done. But I still think it should be legal.
If an atheist employee worked for a caterer and refused to cater a Christian wedding, do you think it would be okay to fire the employee?
If the atheist can explain how Christian marriage violates his religious freedoms, I think he should get to keep his job.
Yup, special laws for religion, that’s what I suspected. At least Lrning is fair about her opinion on conscience laws.
If the atheist can explain how Christian marriage violates his religious freedoms, I think he should get to keep his job.
So only people that can object to abortion on religious grounds are entitled to conscience protections? A pro-life atheist doesn’t have the right to refuse, but a pro-life Christian does?
Good point, Navi.
What would the reasoning be for an atheist to refuse to cater a Christian wedding? Would it be violating his conscience and/or his religion?
Would the atheist’s opposition lie with his disagreement with marriage? Is his conscience being violated by catering any marriage? Or would it lie in his disagreement with Christianity? Would the atheist’s conscience be violated by catering any Christian events (or events where Christians may be mixed in)? Or would the atheist disagree only with Christian marriages? Would his conscience be violated for catering only Christian marriages? What about atheist marriages? Would his conscience be violated by attending an atheist marriage?
What do any of those questions have to do with whether atheists are to be allowed the same conscience rights (if anyone is allowed them) as other people?
You have to be able to vocalize what it is exactly that is actually violating your conscience in order for it to be violated, Jack.
Well I don’t know why the hypothetical atheist would have a problem with Christian marriages, this hypothetical isn’t me. Maybe he thinks that anything religious is damaging and wrong and doesn’t want to participate in a religious ceremony in any way. Maybe she thinks that religious marriage is a patriarchal construct designed to keep women down or something, I wouldn’t know. I bet that the atheist could articulate what their issue was. I don’t see how the atheist’s moral issues with catering the event are any less valid than a Christian not wanting to cater a gay marriage, whatever the reason. My opinion on conscience rights doesn’t change on the person’s reasoning.
Hi Jack,
Concerning the photographer, like with any job if there is going to be a conscience conflict of any kind, she should be up front with her employer when she is hired. Its is then the employer’s option to make the exception for her or not hire her. She should get this exception in writing, to protect them both. If she wasn’t upfront with her employer to begin with, then she has no basis to sue.
Jack,
I also agree that what violates our conscience does not have to be religiously based. Your vegetarianism I assume does not have a religious basis. Neither does my opposition to abortion. However we both have a right to freedom of conscience and not be forced to partake in what violates is.
Maybe our hypothetical athiest is a christianphobe.
” Concerning the photographer, like with any job if there is going to be a conscience conflict of any kind, she should be up front with her employer when she is hired. Its is then the employer’s option to make the exception for her or not hire her. She should get this exception in writing, to protect them both. If she wasn’t upfront with her employer to begin with, then she has no basis to sue.”
Yeah, I do agree with this. Especially about getting it in writing. That’s what I would do if I knew a job may come into conflict with my beliefs. I wouldn’t expect me saying “oh btw I’m a vegetarian/Catholic/atheist/Muslim” would protect me from anything legally. What I don’t like is people thinking that they have a basis for suing when they either never brought it up or never got it clearly stipulated in their job description that they don’t have to perform certain duties.
“Maybe our hypothetical athiest is a christianphobe”
And this is relevant how? Are you trying to score points or share an opinion?
If the atheist is “christianphobic” I don’t see how that means he or she doesn’t have conscience rights.
I don’t keep score in conversations. Just being myself. A simple, beloved child of God.
I have no idea how to take that comment.
Bottom line there will always be doctors who perform abortions nurses who assist with them pharmacists who are willing to dispense Depo contraception …..but I will never be one of them. Id rather be fired.
It is what it is. I’m just being myself
Have a great rest of your weekend. In all sincerety.
So, Praxedes, you’re not going to answer the original question?
Jill could still be at Christ hospital assisting in live birth abortions. she could have shut up about it and it would have remained their dirty little secret. Jill had a higher calling. Leave! And now we have this site.
All I know is that I believe in reasonable conscience protection for everyone, not absolute conscience rights. It is not acceptable that Americans would have to choose between violating their conscience or becoming unemployable. This is especially a risk in the health care industry.
Do conscience rights depend on the specifics of the case (the person’s reasons, etc)? Of course! This is where the “reasonable” comes into play.
I found this legal commentary on the issue interesting.
http://www.consciencelaws.org/law/commentary/legal031.aspx
But back to the topic of this post. OTC EC for all ages is bad medicine and a bad idea. How is it acceptable to us that the health industry treat us like piece-parts instead of whole individuals? A sexually active pre-teen/early teen should send up red flags all over the place and SOMEONE should care enough to make sure these young girls are protected. And I think the same should go for a pre-teen/early teen boy that is buying condoms.
Who decides reasonable?
Oh. It’s relevant because Chriistians are being discriminated against. And history will repeat itself if it doesn’t stop.
And
I agree that this judge is completely insane.
“But back to the topic of this post.”
Wow, there’s an expected twist. :)
JackBorsch says:
Who decides reasonable?
In the past, this has been decided by legislators and courts. Which is why I’m extremely glad you aren’t in politics. You and I don’t agree on what is reasonable conscience protection, apparently.
Verdict ..insane judge!!
Yes, the courts apparently think religious reasoning is okay but if you don’t have a religious reason for not wanting to do something, that’s not good enough for conscience protections. That also seems to be what Praxedes was getting at. That’s not equal protection under the law. I get why they do that, because it could all get pretty ridiculous with people claiming to be morally opposed to things they aren’t, but still, there’s no reason your rights are more important than mine.
Plus I have a huge problem with people thinking, without a previous arrangement with their employer, that they shouldn’t be fired for not doing their job, whatever the reason. Sorry, I know you disagree with me, but it’s just wrong to me.
Women die from birth control and I told you about the 31 year old friend of mine who took the second plan B pill and sat on the toilet screaming legs shaking and scared to death…but yes lets give it to kids like a pack of Mike abd Ikes.
*unexpected
Yes, the courts apparently think religious reasoning is okay but if you don’t have a religious reason for not wanting to do something, that’s not good enough for conscience protections.
This isn’t true at all! You are not religious and yet you would not, in good conscience, participate in an abortion. If you were a nurse, your conscience would/should be protected in that matter. Participation in abortion is one of the few things that most reasonable people agree should be left to the conscience of the medical professional.
repeat
Well if I were a healthcare practitioner I wouldn’t take a job where they performed abortions, at all. I would also make sure my employment contract stated that I wouldn’t be involved in such things at any point during my employment.
But yeah, let’s say abortion is the one issue that people generally agree should be left up to the conscience of the person doing it (though I do suspect it would be harder for a non-religious person to make a court case for that). What about other issues that may not have religious reasoning behind them, but are just as important to the person as abortion is to you and me? Where do we draw this line and who draws it? What type of reasoning do people generally agree is sufficient for a conscience exemption?
If I find out I have a PC doctor i request a sitch immediately .
What about other issues that may not have religious reasoning behind them, but are just as important to the person as abortion is to you and me? Where do we draw this line and who draws it? What type of reasoning do people generally agree is sufficient for a conscience exemption?
If you really want the answers, it sounds like you’ve got yourself a homework assignment. You might get a good starting point from the article I linked to above at 8:02pm. From what I’ve read, it looks to me like there’s no hard and fast line, it’s a constant battle.
I’m reading it now, it seems to focus a lot on freedom of religion in a governmental context, which I’ve never argued against whatsoever. I’ve never thought that government entities should be able to dictate against people’s morals (unless in extreme case such as someone’s “religious beliefs” cause them to abuse their children or something). It doesn’t touch on why laws against government interference should work against private employers who want to fire someone who won’t perform some job functions, though. It’s quite a leap to go from “our laws protect us from having our consciences violated by the state” to “private employers have to employ those who have a moral objection to part of their jobs”.
Also, that entire article seems to focus on those who have religious beliefs to back up their conscience exemptions, there seems to be no such protection for those who don’t have that.
I don’t understand why people would work at a place where things such as abortions are going on (or the MAP is being sold, for those who think it’s morally equivalent to abortion) anyway. How is that morally permissible at all? How can you get a paycheck from somewhere that kills children and say that “oh well, I don’t assist in them so it’s cool”. It would be like me providing security to a slaughterhouse and claiming I’m still great with animal rights because I don’t do the slaughter myself.
Some people choose to work on the “inside” to attempt to make a changes within. Especially if the killing business keeps increasing and spreading to more areas. I’m guessing there may be prolifers working inside clinics/hospitals trying to make last minute saves or soften hardened hearts. In a country of legal abortion, that may be the best we can do and then expose what is learned (like Jill did).
Irena Sendler was an unsung hero that worked in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII. We don’t hear much about her and most people probably have never even heard of her. She was up for the Nobel Peace Price but was beat out by Al Gore who won for his global warming slide show.
I should mention that if there are prolifers on the inside, they are probably not going to be vocal while they are there about their rights being tromped on.
In order to stay on topic, did I mention that I agree this judge is insane.
I guess that makes sense if they have the stomach for it and the capability. A lot of the stories (like the nurses that JoAnna posted) seem to be people that are fine as long as they aren’t directly working with it, but I don’t know them so maybe that’s not what they are up to.
I still think I would feel sick cashing my paychecks from somewhere that did abortions though.
I don’t think I could do it either, Jack. But there must be folks who have taken those gruesome abortion videos and pictures that are showing the world what is taking place.
It is all just so sad.
I don’t see that article being about freedom of religion or focused on a governmental context at all. And I mentioned it as a a starting point because the footnotes are full of references to lead you to further information sources, including court cases which may help you answer your questions of how the line is drawn and who draws it. But whatever. I’m not about to spend hours researching your questions.
I’m reading some of the links, but I do disagree with you about article, it was quite focused on the governmental part of the issue in my opinion. But whatever, insult me more I don’t really care.
Insult you? Please point me to where I insulted you.
Sorry I’m being oversensitive.
I didn’t expect you to do my research for me, I was more wondering where you thought the line should be for conscience exemptions and such. I am sorry I wasn’t clear.
I think that reasonable conscience objections should be accommodated whenever possible. This will look different depending on the situation. Should a scientist that has worked for a health and beauty company for 25 years be fired because the company has decided to start doing animal testing and the scientist objects? Wouldn’t it be more just and reasonable to allow him to be transferred to a product line w/o animal testing? Should a JW doctor be hired as an ER doctor in a hospital that frequently has patients requiring blood transfusions and schedules their docs in such a way that patients lives will be put at risk by the doctor’s conscience objections? Wouldn’t it be more just and reasonable for him to be in a different department or environment? I don’t think there is one line that can be drawn. It’s a balancing act that is situation dependent. But I don’t think our country is currently doing a very good job of conscience protection.
Well I don’t necessarily agree but that’s a reasonable and fair way of looking at the situation.
I would just like to add that I also believe the judge is insane.