MyDD :: Kerry aligns with Santorum AGAINST women

Kerry aligns with Santorum AGAINST women

by Parker, Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:38:37 PM EST

Sorry for posting so much today... but this goes along with the Panty Politics theme and Chris's frontpager

Published: April 12, 2005

To the Editor:

"Moralists at the Pharmacy" (editorial, April 3) addressed "scattered reports" of pharmacists refusing to dispense certain medications that conflict with their personal moral or religious beliefs and women seeking to have these prescriptions filled. We believe that there is a solution that accommodates the needs of both parties.

Recently, we introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which clarifies current law to say a person's religious beliefs should be recognized and accommodated in the workplace as long as this does not adversely affect the employer's business or customers.

The bill is supported by a diverse coalition of more than 45 religious and civil rights groups as well as a bipartisan group of senators and representatives.

If the bill becomes law, a pharmacist who does not wish to dispense certain medications would not have to do so long as another pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications.

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act provides a sensible solution to the potential conflict between an employee's religious conviction and the needs of pharmacy customers. [WHAT SICK ASSED CRAP IS THIS What the fuck is next? What about Muslim wait-persons who wants to refuse to serve pork.]

(Senator) Rick Santorum
(Senator) John Kerry Washington, April 7, 2005
The writers are, respectively, Republican of Pennsylvania and Democrat of Massachusetts.

Kerry is the biggest ASS-WIPE I have ever seen in politics... he is up there with LIEberman.

This is just pathetic and sickening... I NEVER liked Kerry and to say that he would have been better than Bush is a slight understatement... Kerry is an opportunist piece of shit. Isn't he signing this with the man who just made a mockery out of a personal family crises.

NEVER TRUST A SKULL AND CROSSBONES MAN Kerry just fucking tanked and he can go to hell in 2008... before even better.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 58 Comments :: Post a Comment

Boy... what a show Kerry put on .... (3.00 / 1)

at the Bolton hearings knowingly he was publishing this garbage... and knowingly that Bolton will get confirmed but we will have to live with this fundalmentalist crap for years to come as it wears away the separation of Church and State.

Kerry is just an opportunistic piece of shit.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:50:44 PM EST

We also covered this issue thoroughly (none / 0)

In Levana's diary that was front paged, Walmart Allows Pharmacists to Discriminate Against Women: Right from the Horse's Mouth.

The silver lining is that Kerry has just abandoned any possibility of being the 2008 nominee. That's two down. Biden and Kerry are both toast in any Democratic primary.

On the other hand, maybe Kerry is considering a fusion ticket with Santorum as his VP.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are right (2.00 / 1)

I am thankful that Kerry was too much of a chicken-shit coward to contest the vote. I seriousely doubt he would be more than an iota better than Bush.

I can't believe this party spent almost a half a billion dollars trying to get that joke elected. It would have been better used just handing it out to Democratic voters.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:43:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It sounds like a non-measure. (none / 0)

". . . so long as another pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications."

I mean, literally: "Hey Bob! It's a birth-control prescription, you mind doing it?"

As if that kind of thing isn't going to happen anyway?

I'd have to read the bill to be sure, but it sounds like the kind of pointless ineffectual compromise that we're used to from Special K & friends, intended to create the appearance of compromise but having no practical impact on anything.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:18:52 PM EST

non-measure... (2.00 / 1)

you mean like eroding the separation of Church and State.

What if I belong to Rev. Phelps' Church of the Hateful? This would legally give me the "choice" of not serving Blacks and gays.

Kerry is a fucking asshole.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:23:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Blacks and gays? (3.00 / 0)

Except to the degree that any right to refuse service can be selectively enforced (even "no shoes, no shirt, no service" can be used to discriminate), I don't see how this is the case. The statement you posted says that the pharmacist could pick and choose the medication, not the customer.

I suppose somebody could claim that AIDS drugs, or that heart medicine that works better on black people, are against their religion, but they'd have a hard time convincing a court that they had a principled opposition to prolonging the life of an AIDS patient or fighting heart disease that wasn't founded in a sexual or racial bias.

And even if it does give some bigot the right to hand off a black or gay customer to another pharmacist if there's one on duty, like I said: you think they wouldn't do so anyway?

Far from an erosion of the Establishment Clause, it strikes me as an extension of the Americans with Disabilities Act: if you've got some kind of mental defect that makes you feel all oogy about dispensing birth control, then you can have somebody else do it -- as long as somebody else is around.

If there's nobody else there, you've just got to cope.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blacks and gays? (none / 0)

I read that there is a state introducing a bill for doctors to discrimanate from treating gays...

When they come for me now one will be left...

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:25:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blacks and gays? (none / 0)

It is a big deal. It's the constant chipping away by the Republicans and some Democrats are too prepared to meet them half way.

If a pharmacist cannot in good conscience dispense legal prescriptions then he should find another line of work. Under no conditions should he be allowed to pick and choose what he will dispense or to whom he'll dispense it. Kerry sadly got onto the slippery slope.

by Rigel on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:59:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a fair argument, (none / 0)

but there's also something to be said for not seeming too ideologically rigid on this issue. What's being proposed here is trivial in its impact. It represents a symbolic compromise, rather than any actual concession.

And yeah, it's possible that this represents a first step down the slippery slope. On the other hand, it might be the meaningless concession that keeps the drunkard from coming at you because he thinks you insulted his girl -- "she's pretty, all right? Now put the knife away!"

Not every compromise is a sacrifice. People on the other side have very strong feelings on these issues, too, and don't like being blown off or ignored.

Go tell a longtime small-town pharmacist -- and his family, his customers, and his employees -- that he needs to either shut down his shop or personally facilitate something he equates with murder. For my part, I can't imagine a better way to reinforce the Reep-propagated backlash narrative that blames Dems and liberals for the state of the country, even as Reeps and corporatists are holding all the levers of power.

Sometimes it's necessary to suck it up and feel their pain. But like I said, I just want to see the darn bill before I draw any hard conclusions about what it says.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is nonsense (none / 0)

Go tell a longtime small-town pharmacist -- and his family, his customers, and his employees -- that he needs to either shut down his shop or personally facilitate something he equates with murder.

This is exactly why I am against it because there are NO measures in this bill to protect a woman. A woman's only recourse to enforce being served a 30 dollar refill of Birth Control is to hire a lawyer for 30,000 dollars.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating that there are NO PROTECTIONS in this clause.

Legalizing dicrimination and chipping away at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is NOT the best way to protect a woman's civil liberties.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:29:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is nonsense (none / 0)

A woman's only recourse to enforce being served a 30 dollar refill of Birth Control is to hire a lawyer for 30,000 dollars.

This is already the case. Just because the bill doesn't make that better, doesn't mean it makes anything worse.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is nonsense (none / 0)

It is a lot worse!!!

Check out the letter the ACLU sent to all Senators. I huess Kerry chose to ignore it.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Must say. . . (none / 0)

That i agree with Parker's argument, although I would not characterize your views as 'Nonsense". You are welcome to your point of view.

What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong, and the law cannot sanction discrimination of any kind.

In addition, All concessions begin as seemingly meaningless, but once you compromise here, how do you stop the diehard racist teacher who refuses to teach say, Mexicans? Or a doctor from treating Blacks?

No, the law cannot be wishy washy.

It's all nonsense anyway because I can guarantee you this: If a gun store owner decided NOT to sell Saturday night specials, the Republicans would be up in arms. Pun intended.

by Rigel on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Must say. . . (none / 0)

Check out the letter the ACLU sent to all Senators. I huess Kerry chose to ignore it.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Must say. . . (none / 0)

Excellent.
The damage this can do could not be made clearer.

by Rigel on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0)

since nobody else seems to care to, I went ahead and dug up the actual text and posted it here.

Predictably, the bill is not what Kerry, or the ACLU, or Parker, or myself, have made it out to be.

Suffice it to say, I am (for the moment) thoroughly sick of this issue, but that will pass. Take care.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 06:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, (none / 0)

The ACLU have accurately described the Bill and the issues it will likely incur since they have been dealing with this issue for DECADES.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:35:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It sounds like a non-measure. (3.00 / 3)

First off, I passed out a few 'lames' after I got pissed off at the over the top Kerry bashing. If I was wrong for that feel free to rate me down. But I think a little perspective is in order here because Kerry is still a valuable Democrat and is far from being the consort of Santorum.

I'm sure many of you will disagree but imho castrophile has the most sensible take on it that I've seen. The bill is a non-measure that will have little practical impact. If some dork pharmacist wants to make an issue then he'd better have backup otherwise he's in violation of the law. Such pharmacists will not be employable by all pharmacies because they will need at least one partner at all times to remain within the law. For women in places where they have only one pharmacy to choose from there is more of a problem, but the law is now unquestionably on their side.

The bill arguably doesn't change the facts on the ground a bit. Right now a pharmacist can refuse to dispense certain medicines in many states that don't prohibit the practice. Making a national law stating that a woman can't be denied medicines because of a single pharmacists objections has the effect then of giving more protection to women in some states than they had before the bill was created!

It's probably still a flawed bill. I have definite misgivings myself but I'm not ready to argue that a pharmacist has no right to remain in the profession if they won't give out birth control pills. If Wal-Mart wants to go down that mistaken road then I personally don't want to use government power to stop them on this issue. Of course, I'm going to continue boycotting them anyway for their labor issues and unabashed support of the Republican Party along with this new reason to think poorly of them.

But does this bill really make Kerry an unacceptable candidate in 2008? Not by itself it sure doesn't. Give me a choice between Kerry and any Republican and I'll vote for Kerry every time.

Why did Kerry work with Santorum on this? I don't know. WalMart money? Prove that and then we can talk about what a bad idea that is for Kerry.

Rant almost finished. Main point is this. The bill may not be perfect but please, get over the loss in November. It's now history and Kerry is still a Senator with a freaking huge megaphone that can be used to Democrats advantage. But not if a big chunk of his hide gets taken out by Democrats every time he doesn't live up to unrealistic expectations of perfect Democratic-ness. Kerry is flawed but one thing he has done since the loss is continue to push Democratic issues without attacking either his party or any other Democrat. For that he should at least be respectfully disagreed with instead of being trashed at every misstep.

by Curt Matlock on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For the record, (none / 0)

I did and do consider Kerry an unacceptable candidate for President. With that said, however, I was so ecstatic with the way he slapped Bolton around yesterday that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. This is also the guy who led Senate investigations right into the Cheney-Rumsfeld heart of darkness during the Reagan administration. I think he means well and does his best to serve his country as a Senator, and we're lucky to have him there, even if he is a dork.

At the very least, I think we should hold off judgement until we see the actual bill, but nothing in the statement posted above seems that outrageous to me.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry: For the record, (3.00 / 1)

Regarding Kerry, I actually also believe the loss has tainted him and I think he would be a poor choice by the Democrats as their Presidential candidate in 2008. I do think he would have made a good President so I have no problems with him or his qualifications. Instead, it's his (perceived) electability and chance of winning that makes me not want him as a candidate.

You mention Kerry slapping around Bolton. That's not been unique for him since the election. He has made other sharp statements and his votes have been the best votes in about every instance. He consistently has taken the side of Congressional battles that best benefit the Democratic Party.

Whether he is a dork or not, I'd say not, but I don't have insight beyond the same media filtered info everyone else gets. It's hard to say what he is truly when all you see is right-wing media disinformation on the one hand and pro-Kerry smog on the other.

Of course Kerry is self-interested, ambitious, and desirous of power. Name the politician who isn't. But he's on our side and can and should be a strong ally. We should build him up to help ourselves. If he benefits as well then so be it.

by Curt Matlock on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It sounds like a non-measure. (3.00 / 1)

It's a non-measure so that Kerry can attempt to get the excommunication hounds off his back.

"See, I'm Catholic. I support a meaningless bill that would allow a pharmacist not to fill a prescription if his buddy would do it instead."

Women get pills. Pharmacists don't have to prescribe drugs they don't want to. Everyone goes home happy.

Some people here don't understand the details and compromises (i.e. bullshit) that politics is all about.

by wayward on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It sounds like a non-measure. (none / 0)

Yep.

by bellarose on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:26:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On the other hand (none / 0)

I'm just asking, because I don't know all the facts here.

Under current law, can a pharmacist legally refuse to dispense medication that goes against his/her religious beliefs? Or is the current law vague about this?

Does the proposed bill provide that a pharmacist can only legally do this if another pharmacist is available to dispense the medication? If the pharmacist is alone on duty, would he/she be required to dispense the medication?

Is this maybe a reasonable compromise, ensuring that all who need a drug can get it at any pharmacy?

Granted, I'd prefer a law stating that no pharmacist can refuse to dispense any medication that may be prescribed legally. But sometimes, especially in this day and age, we have to take what we can get.

by nocloset on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:19:07 PM EST

Re: On the other hand (none / 0)

I suppose that would go under the Civil Rights Bill for discrimination.

Kerry is allowing at the moment Pharmacist to legally discriminate.

I am now signing relief that this fuckwad was too cowardly to contest the vote. At least now we can fight him... if he won we would be hearing from the Spineless Brigade that we should not challenge the idiot.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:26:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Psssst (none / 0)

You may want to consider toning down the language one tiny step. I've been guilty of the same offense and am trying to mend my ways at the suggestion in a diary the other day from Chris. I'm not the boss of anybody. Just a suggestion.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:09:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Psssst (none / 0)

Yunno....

This is like being trapped in a never-ending Tsunami.

Just when you think you can get your head above water another wave comes. It even more devastating when it comes from your own side.

Kerry has no shame.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is pretty amazing (none / 0)

If it wasn't for the DLC Democrats this session of Congress would be a total disaster for Bush and the Republican party. They seem to be going out of their way to make Bush and the Republicans look good.

What kind of pay-off do you think Kerry got for doing this? It just doesn't make sense for Kerry to help one of the Democratic party's biggest and best targets for defeat in 2006.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is pretty amazing (none / 0)

Well, it is not a coincidence that Kerry spelled out the WalMart Fatwa in this editorial.

I guess the fool think he can get Wal Mart to be a major donor in up and coming campaigns... the cheesy bastard.

You know Amazon is offering Kerry's long boring boatride story as a free E-book. I couldn't get past his hardship at Yale where he agonized where to store his car during the week. The poor thing only needed it on the week ends to visit his spectaculary wealthy girl friend.

The sad thing is that I do believe Kerry has more in common with Sanatorum than the Democratic base.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:50:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry is toast now. (3.00 / 2)

No excuse for this whatsoever. If someone has religious objections to dispensing medications ordered by a licensed physician, that person needs to find another occupation.

Refusing doctor-ordered treatment is not an option that can ever be allowed to someone in an allied health occupation.

by afs on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:30:48 PM EST

Legalizing unethical decisions (none / 0)

So, for that matter, does the pharmacist have the right to refuse to give Valtrex to a person with herpes, because odds are they got it from extramarital sex?

Perhaps a member of a charismatic religion would be allowed to refuse antipsychotic medications to folks because they believe the person is just having visions from God.

And, of course, I'm done letting people buy Metamucil. My religion says you can only get fiber from food.

by jcjcjc on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:02:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This legislation goes both ways (none / 0)

I'm a pharmacists, and i'm morraly against given expensive drugs to terminally ill patients, thus prolonging their suffering.

What if Terri Schiavo's nurse was against keep the tube in place?

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:19:01 PM EST

Re: This legislation goes both ways (3.00 / 2)

If I were a pharmacist I would be morally against dispensing Viagra. If a man can't get an erection I believe that it is God's will, who are we to contradict the lord.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:23:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This legislation goes both ways (none / 0)

And the people who come to me, as I wear my pharmacist hat, better not try to get Retalin. I think that ADD is crap.

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:26:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This legislation goes both ways (none / 0)

Ha ha ha ha ha
So why do you think God created Viagra?

by Rigel on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh, heh . . . (none / 0)

I guess everybody needs a little help now and then, eh?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:13:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My Religion only allows me to work 30 hours a week (none / 0)

And if you try to fire me, I'll see you in court, because you can't discriminate against my religion!

And if I'm qualified, you have to hire me, or I'll see you in court, because you can't discriminate me.

Please come join the CHURCH OF 30 HOUR WORK WEEK.

(of course, our God says you must still pay me for 40 hours)

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:23:22 PM EST

Re: My Religion only allows me (none / 0)

The problem with this legislation, as I see it, is that it can rationalize denying almost any prescribed medication: If a pharmacist believes that AIDS is God's punishment to homosexuals, then you bet he or she could justify denying AZT or other medication to an AIDS patient.

Someone over at Daily Kos who works for a chain pharmacy posted what I thought was a useful idea:

Register a complaint with the chain. They all have customer service lines. You will probably have to mention that you had a prescription that was refused to be filled, but do NOT emphasize that. Emphasize that you had a 'bad customer service experience.' Emphasize the pharmacists' 'rudeness' and 'bad customer service'. Make it about that--customer service. Don't make it a 'it's my body!' issue. Emphasize you aren't happy with the customer service.

Why? This gives the chain an 'out.' Firing someone because of their 'religious beliefs' creates all kinds of problems for them. The chains really are between a rock and a hard place here. However, customer complaints about customer service is a perfectly legitimate reason for firing someone from working in a retail enviroment. Happens all the time. We had a pharmacist fired very recently because she was a rude you-know-what to customers. Six complaints in a couple months, and they let her go.

Poor customer service. Poor customer service. Poor customer service. Don't make this a 'moral' issue for the chains--because that just gets them caught between competing moralities. Don't make it a 'rights' issue because that just gets them caught between competing claims of rights. Poor customer service.

by KimPossible on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:51:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rastafarian pharmacists? (none / 0)

Notin' but the good herb for all that ails you, mon.

by afs on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:49:10 PM EST

Re: Rastafarian pharmacists? (none / 0)

Hell, that'd probably be cheaper and more effective then half the crap Pfizer pushes on us.

At least we know the risks: munchies.

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This isn't a bad measure: (none / 0)

This law does not give a pharmacy the right to descriminate. What it does is say that a pharmacist can chose not fill a certain perscription, provided another pharmacist is on duty. Now the pharmacist would be in vilation if no other pharmacist is on duty.
I don't see any problem with this legislation provided it has a means by which pharmacies that don't fill prescriptions can be held accountable.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:55:42 PM EST

Re: This isn't a bad measure: (none / 0)

This law does not give a pharmacy the right to descriminate

YES IT DOES

Fundalmentally it legalizes discrimination. In the fine print WHICH NO ONE READS it sugar coats a poison pill.

The only recourse a woman would have to to drag her local pharmacist to court... this is harassment.

Remember November 2?

Yes, Black had the right to vote in Ohio. But they were given significantly fewer polling places EVEN THOUGH the fine print said that they should have equal access.

This is rife for abuse which is why KING WINGNUT Sanatorum is backing it.

Kerry is a pathetic waste of space.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:03:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This isn't a bad measure: (none / 0)

The only recourse a woman would have to to drag her local pharmacist to court...

This is already the case -- that has nothing to do with this bill.

What other recourse would you recommend? If a pharmacist refuses to dispense birth control, you get to round up some friends and kick the $#!+ out of him?

Kerry is a freaking wuss.

This is also true.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is a misreading of the bill. (none / 0)

It specifically makes sure the woman can get her perscription fullfilled, but just doesn't require it from someone who's conscience would be violated by the order.

Sublime utopian political allegory from Bearanada

by rUD luvs U on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is a misreading of the bill. (none / 0)

What about a small-town pharmacy that isn't likely to have more than one pharmacist on call?

This is like putting lipstick on a warthog. There is no way to put a positive spin on this bill.

by KimPossible on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:53:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a bad measure: (3.00 / 1)

Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions quickly after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill an order because of moral opposition to the drug.

The emergency rule takes effect immediately for 150 days while the administration seeks a permanent rule.

"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to," Blagojevich said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

We need more real men in the Democratic Party. Kerry is a freaking wuss.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a bad measure: (none / 0)

B-Rod seems to be a good guy.

The other thing these wing-nuts refuse to admit is that women take birth control for reasons other than contraception, e.g., to alleviate endometriosis or dysmenorrhea (fancy word for severe cramps). The pharmacist ought to know this yet they're just seeking a legalized way to impose their moral judgment.

by KimPossible on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:56:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a bad measure: (none / 0)

I just posted the entire letter from the ACLU that was sent to all Senators including Kerry and Hilliary on the damaging effects of this bill.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:15:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps you are just uninformed (none / 0)

We covered this very thoroughly in a diary that I linked to up above, Walmart discriminates against women. A woman who has been raped is not interested in holding pharacists accountable. She just wants the right to purchase a legal drug without being subjected to self-righteous, sanctimonious cross examination about her purchase.

Pharmacists have also refused to sell birth control pills to unmarried women. Do you also not have a problem with that?

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see the problem here. The proposed (none / 0)

law allows the woman to continue to get her requested medication and allows pharmacists to follow their own consciences. No one gets hurt here. What's the problem??? Great compromise solution IMO. Go John Go! That's what true moderation should be rather than that sorry excuse for a form VP candidate Lieberman's Surrender Monkey ways. And btw, have you been watching how JK has been wiping the floor with the Republicans with his effective petition campaigns. Go take a few minutes and sign one of his petitions! He's being extremely effective as Prez-in-Exile!

Just another Jesus followin' Green for Constitutional Democracy. :-)
dailyJam.blogspot.com

by JamBoi on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:08:40 PM EST

Well . . . (none / 0)

What is the penalty if the only on duty pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription or refuses to sell a non-prescription drug?
Was the compromise a greater benefit to Kerry and the Democratic party or Santorum and the Republican party?
The current odds are largely in favor of Bolton being nominated as U.N. Ambassador. I heard Kerry's cross examination live on KPKFK and it was well done and impressive. What was actually accomplished?
What has Kerry actually accomplished or what legislation has Kerry or the Democratic party in it's entirety actually blocked?
Has Kerry's ad run in USA today yet? Why did he have to ask the grass/netroot ATM machine for money?

I'm just asking.

by GaryBoatwright on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't the good of the women and the pharmacists (none / 0)

more important than the good of the Democratic or Republican party? I'm just asking.

Sublime utopian political allegory from Bearanada

by rUD luvs U on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see the problem here. The proposed (none / 0)

Check out the letter the ACLU sent to all Senators. I huess Kerry chose to ignore it.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my opinion (none / 0)

as long as someone else is ON DUTY, it is fine.

This comes from a Jew who gains from this act when there is that no hat dress code. The bill permits me to wear a kippah on the job and get off on saturdays.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:38:48 PM EST

Keep Religion in the Damned Church! n/t (none / 0)

DAGGER

by goplies on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 07:08:36 AM EST

Re: Keep Religion in the Damned Church! n/t (3.00 / 1)

With the aid of Denmocrats religion is crept into our schools, our doctors offices and now the work place.

Kerry and Hilliary are shameless...

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:09:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

keeping religion in the private sector (none / 0)

I thought that we had protection from government workers imposing their religion on others. Isn't that what America is all about? I think that keeping your religious beliefs in the private sphere allows more religious freedom, not less. I understand that people can have a personal relationship with God that they don't want to hide under a "bushel," but if you don't want to prescribe medicines then don't be a pharmacist. I mean, I hate big multinational corporations who trample houman rights, so I don't work for one. I am free to do that, so are fundamentalist Christains.

by Levana on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:59:57 AM EST

Re: keeping religion in the private sector (none / 0)

Check out the letter the ACLU sent to all Senators. I huess Kerry chose to ignore it.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Forget the pharmacist. (none / 0)

If anything, we Democrats should be shaking our collective heads and saying to ourselves: "Here they go again."

Then we should be asking ourselves: Why are we always on the defensive?

Little by little, the Republicans are chipping away at our freedoms, harassing our people, making their lives more difficult and decreasing their choices. And, we just keep taking it, and taking it and taking it. We say: "Ah, this is no big deal, just a minor inconvenience, its symbolic that's all", not knowing that once the camel's nose is under thye tent, before long he'll be pushing us out. We do not swee the danger until it's right upon us, and too late for us to do anything about.

Our enemies are inordinately creative. They can always find new fronts to explore and probe. Who would have thought they'd start a recall in California and steal the Governorship? Just like that, California is gone. Who expected them to break the rules and start redistricting in Texas and steal five seats? Then the bankruptcy bill, the most harmful thing yet to our people, class-action, blocking our people from suing where it could benefit them most, now they are trying to make it more difficult for our women to get birth control.

It never ends. And we, just take it, and take it, and take it.

by Rigel on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:31:22 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.