Woman was denied morning-after pill because of pharmacists' beliefs: Lawsuit

She shouldn’t have to drive two hours because some christofacist has decided what is best for her.

 

She doesn't have to - she chose pregnancy, remember. She wasn't raped, so it was clearly her choice. That she changed her mind sometime after the fact is irrelevant. That's like wailing because you really don't like the particular shade of blue of those $500 boots you just bought. Tough t!tties. Shoulda thought about that before you pressed play.

 

Do you see Progressives (who are almost always atheists) weaponising against Islam in America? Because I don't.

 

None of the articles claim Thrifty White Pharmacy, the pharmacy that denied the prescription, had plan b in stock.

 

She did not choose pregnancy, according to the article the condom failed. She chose to have sex. Sex does not equal pregnancy. Then she chose to go to the doctor to make sure she was not pregnant. Then a christofacist decided he knew better than both her and her doctor. Then she was lied to to prevent her from going somewhere else.

Hopefully he loses his license

For these “issues” to not be about hating women or hating sex that seems to be where the narrative always goes.

 

Ella was the prescription.
Yes they do.

 

I must have missed where I Muslim tried to prevent someone from filling their prescription, have a source?
Or just trying to deflect?

 

Why would he lose his licenses, and how do you know she even had sex?

 

NO, she did NOT CHOOSE pregnancy, NO WOMAN CAN CHOOSE pregnancy.

Her BC failed which is what the "morning after " pill is for.

It PREVENTS pregnancy. There was NO pregnancy....

 

There's a simple way to settle this. I think you're going to find you were mistaken, and that it was Walgreens that had the drug in stock.

 

Are you really saying the woman is suing because they didn’t have an item in stock?
That will be laughed out of court. Feel free to source that this is the case.

 

I'm waiting for you to quote one of the many articles.

 

Or, duh. you could just read the OP....

 

It’s literally what the lawsuit is. You are the one claiming they were out of stock.
I see the thread moved on from calling her a whore, to saying he has a right to prevent murder even though she wasn’t pregnant, now the argument has switched to there was none in stock. The desperation is palpable.

 

And if they screw up and the order is delayed?

The simple answer is to require pharmacies to dispense all prescribed medicines.

 

Get it from somewhere else where it is readily available stop with the EXTREMES.

 

I didn't switch the argument. I said that he can't be forced to keep it in stock. You said the article stated that it was in stock. It doesn't.

My argument has always been that he can't be forced to sell a product he doesn't want to sell. The reason why is irrelevant.

 

He should not be able to prevent a medical treatment. His personal beliefs should be irrelevant. If he cannot do his job another pharmacist at the same location should be made available.
The customer and patient should not inconvenienced in any way over his personal preferences.

It’s dangerous to allow this level of precedent

 

Why should she be the one inconvenienced?
Especially with the fact that direct harm could come to her where as the pharmacist would no way be impacted.

 

He didn't prevent treatment. He can't be forced to provide it.

 

Pull his license.

 

He is required by the licensing board to find an alternative provider. He not only failed to do so, it would appear he actively attempted to prevent her from finding one herself.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...harmacies-for-denying-her-morning-after-pills

In the lawsuit filed this week in Aitkin County, Minnesota, Anderson alleged the pharmacist there, a man named George Badeaux, refused to fill her prescription based on his “beliefs” and warned her against trying to get it filled at another nearby pharmacy.

The suit argues that although pharmacists in Minnesota are allowed to deny patients seeking an emergency-contraception prescription because of religious or personal objections, they must counsel the patient on another place to get the drug, according to the Washington Post.

“Under the exception, it is the ‘responsibility of the pharmacist-in-charge to make arrangements with a nearby pharmacy to fill these prescriptions so that the appropriate information can be communicated immediately to patients,’” the suit says.

 

He absolutely prevented treatment.
If he is unable to do his job then he needs a new career.

 

It's actually really is the company policy to provide that service. He's simply refusing to do his job.
He obviously should be fired and suit for lying on his job application, putting people at potential risk.

 

That's a dumb argument. Why aren't you obligated to drive it to her house?

I have yet to hear anything approaching an argument that would justify forcing a pharmacist to sell a specific medication. He doesn't have to stock every known medication. He doesn't have to stock every brand. He doesn't have to sell anything he doesn't want to sell.

If he was selling to men but not women, I'd be with you. If he was selling to Christians but not Muslims I'd be with you. If he was selling to whites but not Chinese I'd be with you. But if he doesn't keep it in stock and doesn't sell it to anyone you can't force him to do it.