BS: Noted without comment

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 04:07 PM

Another musical twist....i'm tired of every sperm is sacred....

Aaaaaaalltogether now!

Ovaries are sacred
Ovaries are great!
Without the eggs
We'd have no
Way to procreate!

Let the men waste their seed
On frequent casual w*anks
We've got eggs a-plenty
And sperm in special banks

Ovaries are sacred
Ovaries are great!
Without the eggs
We'd have no
Way to procreate!

The oafs can spill their semen
We've got enough in store
Let the bugger waste it
We don't need them anymore!

Ovaries are sacred
Ovaries are great!
Without the eggs
We'd have no
Way to procreate!

Now we dont have to put up
With thirty second shags...
In case you hadn't noticed,
I am on the rag!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 03:34 PM

To give the thread a musical twist.
From Bruce Hornsby's "Long Valley Road":

Out in the hall they were talking in a whisper
Everybody noticed she was gone awhile
Somebody said she's gone to her sister's
But everybody knew what they were talking about

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 03:07 PM

That's what i thought might happen...

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 03:05 PM

A pregnant Bush daughter would have an abortion arranged so carefully and discretely we would probably never know about it, and her daddy would go on with his bare faced hypocrisy the same as always.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 02:55 PM

And of course underage drinking often leads to promiscuous underage sexual activity... imagine how embarresing it would be for one of the Bush twins to become pregnant? I wonder what would happen...

Dunno, but...i have fantastic parents, and i've indulged in a lot of drinking(i've stopped now). Maybe some folks are just born thirsty...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 12:12 PM

I noticed that when his daughters introduced him they talked about the values he has being used in their upbringing being good for the whole country. What value is it that engenders a taste for underage drinking?

The funniest thing is that these folks are against brith control and abortion but probably wouldn't have a problem selling you a carton of smokes!

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: LadyJean
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 12:11 AM

In case you haven't noticed, GW Bush has two daughters of childbearing age. I'm sure he hopes they'll make him a grampa, 15 months after a My Daughter Is Purer Than The Driven Snow wedding. He does not want his daughters producing any embarassing premarital grandkids. So birth control and abortion are going to stay legal in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 11:19 PM

A friend just sent me a cartoon. A tank and soldiers are pulled up in front of a typical suburban home. Helicopters are hovering. The caption reads"

"2:12 P.M.---August 16, 2007-----The last secular humanist is flushed from his spider hole."

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 12:06 PM

I only hope that the pharmacist never needs anything desperately from wherever this woman works. Pay backs a B*tch!

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 07:32 AM

Blissfully Ignorant,
That's not fair, I wanted to make that quip and even had already looked up how to spell hypo...

That's really frightening: You should live as my conscience tells me. If only the different gods would stop telling the respective faithful how others should live.

The Amish car salesman, the Sikh hairdresser, the fundamentalist Muslim male doctor (not treating females), the vegan poultry vendor...

(Though this attitude it can have advantages sometimes: I remember the fundamentalist Christian bicycle hirer on the Isle of Lewis who insisted that he could not let people hire bicycles on Sundays and therefore I had to take the bicycle for free...)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:17 PM

What do you expect?
After all he is the poster boy for the ultimate late term abortion!

(To all FBI/CIA agents reading this, this is a joke, no threat to the pres. is meant)

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: jacqui.c
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 08:36 PM

On the news tonight there was a piece involving an interview with an anti-abortionist who stated that these organisations got Bush elected and they expect him to effectively do what they want him to do. One can only hope that he takes the normal path of the politician and reneges on his election promises.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 02:40 PM

To the dismayed American friends over there, I can only say I'm sorry and repeat what I have said before in these pages.

These awful times in history do pass.

we had something very similar with Thatcher. Even now the tv companies are always thrusting money into the hands of her hated lieutenant Norman Tebbit to say awful things about the personal liberation that the mood of the 60's bought to so many of us.

The mood of the people will change, although these right wing demagogues do incredible damage and by their actions, write a thousand new personal tragedies every day. Thatcher so hated the idea of ordinary people having a reasonable sort of life that she orchestrated vast unemployment. nearly two generations of young people grew up with zilch prospects of having a job.

due to Englands rather eccentric polling system, she never had more that 39% of the electorate voting for her, and her supporters were nearly all in the affluent south - or in agricultural areas were labour wasn't organised.

The mood of illiberality will change and there will be a swing away from these stinkers. Their sheer malice makes them totally incompetent rulers and people get fed up with that eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 01:20 PM

"Does anyone know if pharmacists have to take the Hypocratic Oath or something like it?"

I think the one in question took a Hypocritical Oath at some point....

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Tinker
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:42 AM

Okay, I have to comment. I'm home today with a 17 year old virgin(by Doctor's surprised acclimation ) who is on the pill due to a serious ovarian cyst problem. So should the doctor have needed to put a diagnosis on the prescription to assure that a pharmacist would fill it ??? Does the pharmacist have the right to second guess the Physicians medical recommendation ??? And who made it the pharmacists business why the prescription was issued anyway ???

Perhaps if you post your refusal to sell certain items, I can choose not to do business with you. But as pharmacists aren't allowed to dispense without a Doctors order, I find it difficult to understand how they can refuse the ordered medical treatment.

tinker

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:26 AM

All together now:

"Every sperm is sacred...

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:20 AM

Get it said, Fib!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:54 AM

Sweet suffering mother of Christ! How can someone be anti-abortion AND anti-contraception....? ( I know how, I mean WHY?) It beggars belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 08:35 AM

also noted - & so pleased I live here, not there - tho our 'religious' right are going on about abortion now they (rightwingers) have a majority in parliament. Little Johnny (he who introduced 'non-core promises' into the Oz political lexicon) has said that there will be no vote on abortion in his parliament (see previous comment about 'non-core promises')

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Davetnova
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 06:44 AM

If I found myself in a position where my morals prevented me from doing my job I would find a different job. To me there is something distinctly dishonest about accepting a job of work that your moral/religious beliefs prevent you from fufilling, so although these folk may be moral they are certainly dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: RangerSteve
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 06:25 AM

LadyJean, as a lapsed Christian Scientist, I can assure you that we go to doctors and take medicines. It's the real wackos that don't, and every religian has those. However, I'm pretty sure that you'll never see a CS pharmacist. If you did, you'd get your medicine as we're pretty tolerant. (actually, I originally had the same thought that you did).

Does anyone know if pharmacists have to take the Hypocratic Oath or something like it? If they do, then they're bound to give you your prescription whether they like it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Gurney
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 02:55 AM

If a woman conceived as a result of a pharmacists refusal, would she be able to claim maintenance from the pharmacist, as he is responsible for the child coming to term?

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: LadyJean
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 01:17 AM

An Orthodox Jewish pharmacist or one who was a Jehovah's Witness could kill a transplant patient if they refused anti rejection drugs.
What if the pharmacist was a Christian Scientist!
I've met a lot of people who thought allergies were all someone's mind. Suppose one of them didn't hand out antihistimines.
I think all psychiatrists are dishonest quacks. If I became a pharmacist could I refuse to give patients Ritalin, or Prozac? Things to consider.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 01:15 AM

Wow.

I keep thinking nothing can shock me anymore. Now I realize I'm most likely going to be spending the next four years being more and more.

-e

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 01:10 AM

Someone should explain world population, (or over-population) to these people. We are currently at an estimated 6,400,574,443 people with 3 babies a second being born. To me that in itself is terrifying.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:44 PM

"Have they also stopped selling Trojans??...all but the filter-tip type.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: John Routledge
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:39 PM

Reading this thread has saddened me.

Congratulations for so much restraint being shown.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:39 PM

Probably would... whether they disagree or not, he's obligated to do his job, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:33 PM

I wonder if the pharmacist would reconsider his position on the matter if, say, his teenage daughter got pregnant...

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: curmudgeon
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:31 PM

Theree's an unemployed pharmicist in NH who refused ti fill a perscription of a "morning after" pill. This of course is no help to the woman who wanted the perscription filled.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: jacqui.c
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:27 PM

Surely if there are aspects of a job that do not equate with one's beliefs one should steer clear of those occupations.

If a pharmacist holds these convictions they should have to make it clear to the public that they will not fill certain prescriptions - that enables the public to choose a pharmacy that wil provide the service they require. However, THAT would be bad for business, wouldn't it!

These people have no right to enforce their views on others. This really makes my blood boil. It's OK to hold a point of view - just don't try to make other people conform to your own idea of what is right. I'd love to know just how squeaky clean these 'right to lifers' are.

Rant over, I'll get back in me box now.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:19 PM

Interesting question, Bee-dubya-ell...i suppose if the husband went, it might be undermining the woman's authority over her own body enough for it to acceptable...

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: darkriver
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:14 PM

Yeah, Bee-dubya,

that's another thing. How much is this against contraception? Have they also stopped selling Trojans? Or is it the spectre of women controlling their own conceptions that knocks them for a loop?

doug

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:10 PM

Do ya think the same pharmacist would have refused to fill the prescription if the woman's husband had run it by the pharmacy for her?

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: darkriver
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:09 PM

For me, the disturbing part is not that the pharmacists refused, but that they refused on the grounds of equating a contraceptive pill with abortion.

That erases so many distinctions, it scares the hell out of me.

I'd actually support them if they said they didn't want to sell the stuff, but not with that kind of 'reasoning'.

doug

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:22 PM

This is where the division of church and state idea comes from. Too bad we can't get the so-called "Christian Coallition" to understand that. I'm waiting for a huge bunch of middle east refugees to come here and install Islam as our religeon and government.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Sorcha
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 06:37 PM

This is very scary and the American Taliban is already here. In spades.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 06:02 PM

there are certain businesses where people with deep reservations about certain values should not get involved.....you don't make soldiers out of the Amish or Quakers....

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Maryrrf
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 05:34 PM

I heard this story and thought it was disgusting. Any pharmacist who not only refuses to fill the prescription, but refuses to forward it to another pharmacist who will, should lose their license and I would hope they would be fired from wherever they work. Are there no limits to holier than thou self righteousness????? I agree totally with Bill D - and I find it frightening.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 05:06 PM

my poor, miguided mind always thought that in issues where people didn't agree on 'principles', each ought to follow his own, and leave everyone else alone...but it seems more & more that the goal is to get some sort of control or leverage and STOP others from following their conscience.

I see a bit of a rise in that attitude these days.....stay alert!

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 04:58 PM

Innaresting possible ramifications. How about a Jain grocery clerk refusing to sell you rat poison? Or a devoted teetotaler refusing to sell you a bottle of cooking wine? Or a mechanic who's a Nader-type believer in guaranteeing safety refusing to tune up your car past the point where it will do 55 mph? Or....the mind boggles.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 04:34 PM

Wonder if there are any law suits in the works especially regarding the theft of a prescription? It can't be leagl to take a prescription and keep it while refusing to fill it...I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 04:18 PM

The American Taliban. Look out. It's coming.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 03:39 PM

What happened to - 'your unfettered freedom to wave your fist around stops at the end of my nose'?

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 03:26 PM

Got to find me a job where refusing to work on the basis of my views still allows me to keep it.

Got to wonder what the pharmaceutical companies think about pharmacists refusing to give out their product.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 03:16 PM

Also, wouldn't the prescription be the property of the GP, entrusted to the patient and a refusal of the pharmacist return the prescription to the patient or the prescribing doctor, be considered an act of theft?

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 02:13 PM

As a sexual health profesional I am shocked and saddened by this. Here in the UK I have come across similar prejudices from GPs but never pharmacists..........what happens if someone requires emergency contraception, do they still take the same view ? Suppose that emergency contraception is required as the result of a sexual assault or rape ? Geezus what is going on ?????????

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Dead Horse
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 02:11 PM

I guess Bush's mum had same probs in her day, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Chris Green
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 02:10 PM

I understand that on the far side of the pond you can buy bullets from supermarkets. Does this mean pacifists who work there can refuse to sell them? Jesus, what a cack-handed state of affairs...

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: mack/misophist
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 02:05 PM

Noticed

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 02:05 PM

WTF? I'm actually in shock...

Subject: BS: Noted without comment
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 02:00 PM

USA TODAY
Druggists refuse to give out pill

Tue Nov 9, 6:54 AM ET
        
Add to My Yahoo!         Politics - USATODAY.com

By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY

For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.

Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions.

"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America.

"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said.

Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such drugs as the "morning-after" pill, which is emergency contraception that can prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse.

While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of causing an abortion.

"I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.

Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim.

In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.

She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely.

Susan Winckler, spokeswoman and staff counsel for the American Pharmacists Association, says it is rare that pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription for moral reasons. She says it is even less common for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a referral.

        

"The reality is every one of those instances is one too many," Winckler says. "Our policy supports stepping away but not obstructing."

In the 1970s, because of abortion and sterilization, some states adopted refusal clauses to allow certain health care professionals to opt out of providing those services. The issue re-emerged in the 1990s, says Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive issues.

Sonfield says medical workers, insurers and employers increasingly want the right to refuse certain services because of medical developments, such as the "morning-after" pill, embryonic stem-cell research and assisted suicide.

"The more health care items you have that people feel are controversial, some people are going to object and want to opt out of being a part of that," he says.

In Wisconsin, a petition drive is underway to revive a proposed law that would protect pharmacists who refuse to prescribe drugs they believe could cause an abortion or be used for assisted suicide.

"It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to abortion."