The infamous “Storman Case” again has wended its way through the courts. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the lower court was correct, defending actions of Washington State to require all pharmacies licensed to do business in the state MUST fill all legal prescriptions.
At issue: Storman runs markets with pharmacies, and refuses to fill birth control prescriptions.
Earlier the state had compromised allowing Stormans to allow pharmacists who refuse on religious grounds to sell any prescription they deem to be an abortifacient (read birth control) provided that Stormans always employs one pharmacist during business hours who will fill such prescriptions. This was unacceptable to Stormans who prefer to hire only personnel who agree with the owners on such matters. Even earlier, a compromise held that Stormans could continue refusing provided that they directed the customer to another pharmacy within reasonable distance who would sell. They refused claiming this forced them into aiding and abetting.
This time Stormans claims they’ll be forced out of business. This was a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit. Stormans announced they will now appeal to the full court.
This has been going on for years. However, it’s being closely watched because of the impact on pharmacies everywhere and pharmacists are an essential branch of the medical profession.
Many say “this one is now on its way to SCOTUS.” Almost certainly this will go to the Supremes, whether they take it up or not. I predict they will.
Stormans owns several supermarkets in Thurston Co, Washington, and nearby…all with pharmacies.
They are in no way being forced out of business. They are forcing themselves out of business. They were even given two different ways around the issue and they refused it. I hope the higher courts uphold the decision of the 9th circuit court.
No one should open a pharmacy business unless they are prepared to fill all prescriptions. If their religion preaches against it they should get out and stay out of the pharmacy business. Pharmacies ARE part of the medical system. Imagine a doctor refusing to provide a woman with a birth control prescription because the doctor is Catholic.
They have no right to be in business if they are not going to serve all customers. If they have to go out of business to satisfy their religious beliefs, they shouldn’t blame it on the legislature or the courts. It would be the pharmacy owner’s decision to go out of business.
Lois
They are in no way being forced out of business. They are forcing themselves out of business. They were even given two different ways around the issue and they refused it. I hope the higher courts uphold the decision of the 9th circuit court.It's amazing you don't realise that you are saying if they go out of business they will do so of their own free will. And I think you're wrong anyway. They want to do what is morally right (in their eyes) and stay in business. They are having that option taken away and so being forced to do what they don't want. Perhaps they should be forced but let's not pretend that is not what is happening.
Stephen I don’t agree with you. When you open a business that serves the public you forgo some of your rights to free expression in the operation of that business. Business owners are not for example allowed to discriminate against patrons based on race, religion, gender etc. You can’t refuse to serve a gay person for example just because they are gay.
When it comes to medical services this is even more critical. We can’t have a Jehova’s Witness physician refuse to transfuse a patient simply because they believe its immoral.
In any given area there are only going to be a limited number of pharmacies and in some towns there may only be one for many miles. Allowing a pharmacy owner to dictate what legal meds he is going to sell essentially allows him to dictate to the local community what meds they will be allowed to access. Religious beliefs are trumped by patients’ needs. If you can’t live with that then you have no business owning a pharmacy.
As a side note the owner of this pharmacy doesn’t even have the science right. Birth control pills are not abortafacients. That’s a myth perpetuated by the religious right but its scientifically inaccurate. This is not about abortion. Its about religious fanatics trying to control the sexual activities of others which is really none of their business.
Stephen I don't agree with you. When you open a business that serves the public you forgo some of your rights to free expression in the operation of that business. Business owners are not for example allowed to discriminate against patrons based on race, religion, gender etc. You can't refuse to serve a gay person for example just because they are gay. When it comes to medical services this is even more critical. We can't have a Jehova's Witness physician refuse to transfuse a patient simply because they believe its immoral. In any given area there are only going to be a limited number of pharmacies and in some towns there may only be one for many miles. Allowing a pharmacy owner to dictate what legal meds he is going to sell essentially allows him to dictate to the local community what meds they will be allowed to access. Religious beliefs are trumped by patients' needs. If you can't live with that then you have no business owning a pharmacy. As a side note the owner of this pharmacy doesn't even have the science right. Birth control pills are not abortafacients. That's a myth perpetuated by the religious right but its scientifically inaccurate. This is not about abortion. Its about religious fanatics trying to control the sexual activities of others which is really none of their business.All I'm saying is it's a clear case of being forced to comply or go out of business against their will. I'm not saying I disagree with it.
All I'm saying is it's a clear case of being forced to comply or go out of business against their will. I'm not saying I disagree with it.But why would you say that? What are you implying? When I hear it, I hear that witch doctors were forced out of business a long time ago, and they are still forced to not even bother getting into business. The concept of being licensed to do a certain thing seems so simple and straight forward to me. You seem to understand that there is no place for a religious argument that results in choosing not to follow the agreement of that license. But you brought it up? Why? My guess is, you think there is a religious argument for having a business that has special rules, that doesn't have to follow the agreement that everyone else does.
All I'm saying is it's a clear case of being forced to comply or go out of business against their will. I'm not saying I disagree with it.But why would you say that? What are you implying? When I hear it, I hear that witch doctors were forced out of business a long time ago, and they are still forced to not even bother getting into business. The concept of being licensed to do a certain thing seems so simple and straight forward to me. You seem to understand that there is no place for a religious argument that results in choosing not to follow the agreement of that license. But you brought it up? Why? My guess is, you think there is a religious argument for having a business that has special rules, that doesn't have to follow the agreement that everyone else does. No. I really did only bring it up because Lois was saying they are not being forced against their will. I think one should be straight about this. We should say yes we are forcing you against your will because we believe we are justified in doing so.
Ok but we all understand that that is the price for living in a civilized society. Lots of businesses are forced to go out of business or never start because their practices are not in the best interests of society. Im not sure many people would have a problem with that concept. I certainly dont.
They are in no way being forced out of business. They are forcing themselves out of business. They were even given two different ways around the issue and they refused it. I hope the higher courts uphold the decision of the 9th circuit court.It's amazing you don't realise that you are saying if they go out of business they will do so of their own free will. And I think you're wrong anyway. They want to do what is morally right (in their eyes) and stay in business. They are having that option taken away and so being forced to do what they don't want. Perhaps they should be forced but let's not pretend that is not what is happening. There are thousands of laws that not everyone agrees with. Most of the time people follow them anyway. It's only fools who expect exceptions. Of course they want to stay in business and continue to discriminate. So did white southern businessowners after civil rights laws were passed. Were they given exceptions? Many of them also claimed religious discrimination if they had to serve black people. Many landlords didn't want to rent apartments to black people. Should they have been given exceptions? They wanted to stay in business and still discriminate. They were not permitted to do so. I don't like a lot of zoning laws or traffic laws. Can I get an exception to them because they interfere with my belief that I should be able to do what I want with my property or my car? If not, why not? Lois
Stephen I don't agree with you. When you open a business that serves the public you forgo some of your rights to free expression in the operation of that business. Business owners are not for example allowed to discriminate against patrons based on race, religion, gender etc. You can't refuse to serve a gay person for example just because they are gay. When it comes to medical services this is even more critical. We can't have a Jehova's Witness physician refuse to transfuse a patient simply because they believe its immoral. In any given area there are only going to be a limited number of pharmacies and in some towns there may only be one for many miles. Allowing a pharmacy owner to dictate what legal meds he is going to sell essentially allows him to dictate to the local community what meds they will be allowed to access. Religious beliefs are trumped by patients' needs. If you can't live with that then you have no business owning a pharmacy. As a side note the owner of this pharmacy doesn't even have the science right. Birth control pills are not abortafacients. That's a myth perpetuated by the religious right but its scientifically inaccurate. This is not about abortion. Its about religious fanatics trying to control the sexual activities of others which is really none of their business.Although that's true, the Catholic church bans the use if birth control that are not abortifacients. It may be incorrect to say that is the reason the pharmacists are against selling birth control materials. That could be an error by the writer of the article. The pharmacists could be Catholics and the birth control method need not be abortifacient in order for them to refuse to provide it. Lois
All I'm saying is it's a clear case of being forced to comply or go out of business against their will. I'm not saying I disagree with it.But why would you say that? What are you implying? When I hear it, I hear that witch doctors were forced out of business a long time ago, and they are still forced to not even bother getting into business. The concept of being licensed to do a certain thing seems so simple and straight forward to me. You seem to understand that there is no place for a religious argument that results in choosing not to follow the agreement of that license. But you brought it up? Why? My guess is, you think there is a religious argument for having a business that has special rules, that doesn't have to follow the agreement that everyone else does. No. I really did only bring it up because Lois was saying they are not being forced against their will. I think one should be straight about this. We should say yes we are forcing you against your will because we believe we are justified in doing so. We're all forced to follow some laws against our will. I'll bet you are too. Why should pharmacists be different? This law in no way forces them out of business. They have a choice. Either follow the law or go out of business. It's their choice. It's no different from Southern racists who had to go out of business if they refused to do business with black people. It was still the businessowner's choice. Lois
A retail store is private property and the owners of that property can choose not to serve anyone they choose not to serve. If they choose to not sell a particular line of product, that is also their choice. In this case it appears that their choice is to either sell prescriptions to whoever has a prescription, or to stop filling prescriptions altogether. In other words they can shut down their pharmacy.
No. I really did only bring it up because Lois was saying they are not being forced against their will. I think one should be straight about this. We should say yes we are forcing you against your will because we believe we are justified in doing so.It's a bad choice of words and I think you know it. You are choosing those words to make a point about this particular thing. To say we are forcing pharmacists to do this because we force everyone to obey the law or go to jail, is to say nothing at all. When I say it, I'm making the point that laws are "enforced" and they wouldn't be laws if we didn't enforce them. So there's no reason to point it out every time a law is mentioned. It is part of what it means to be a law, so if you are pointing it out, you must have a problem with the idea of the rule of law, or with this particular law.
A retail store is private property and the owners of that property can choose not to serve anyone they choose not to serve. If they choose to not sell a particular line of product, that is also their choice. In this case it appears that their choice is to either sell prescriptions to whoever has a prescription, or to stop filling prescriptions altogether. In other words they can shut down their pharmacy.You are right about selling prescriptions. They are running a business and the state has the right to impose rules on businesses. As private property they can do some of what they please (except for other laws they must also follow). They can't sell to the public unless they sell to everyone who is permitted to buy alcohol. They can't sell alcohol without a license, either, and they have to follow other rules that go with selling alcohol. They also can't sell food that contradicts the rules of the health department and they have to follow the rules of employment law whether they sell anything or not. They can't run a gambling operation, either, without a proper license and also following local gambling laws. That their property is their private property is of little consequence. Even if they are not dealing with the public, there are rules that must be followed. For example, they can't have a private gambling operation or run a private house of prostitution in most jurisdictions. Are you suggesting that private property lets owners flout the law? Lois
. Are you suggesting that private property lets owners flout the law? LoisYou are reading things into my posts that are not there, nor are they implied. I'm not interested in arguing with fools.
Ok but we all understand that that is the price for living in a civilized society. Lots of businesses are forced to go out of business or never start because their practices are not in the best interests of society. Im not sure many people would have a problem with that concept. I certainly dont.I don't either. It's just if we are forcing people to do things against their will we should say so. Not pretend it's their choice they are putting themselves out of business. This trick is pulled a lot. You hear it regarding talks with Iran over nuclear weapons for instance. It's a way of justifying what we're doing which twists things and should not be used. If there is justification just be straight about what it is, as you are.
Of course they want to stay in business and continue to discriminate.Right. So they are being forced to comply or go out of business contrary to what you said which was in no way are they being forced out of business and it is their own decision. I was only pointing that out.
To say we are forcing pharmacists to do this because we force everyone to obey the law or go to jail, is to say nothing at all.No we aren't forcing everybody. People often willingly comply with laws. In this case I brought it up simply because Lois said that in no way are they being forced out of business, it is their own choice. This is not true and is a trick we play.
This law in no way forces them out of business. They have a choice.This is a mean trick.
Either follow the law or go out of business. It's their choice.This is no different than saying it's a slaves choice to be whipped. It's his choice, work or be whipped. It is forced because which ever option they select it is forced, meaning forced against their will.
Ok but we all understand that that is the price for living in a civilized society. Lots of businesses are forced to go out of business or never start because their practices are not in the best interests of society. Im not sure many people would have a problem with that concept. I certainly dont.I don't either. It's just if we are forcing people to do things against their will we should say so. Not pretend it's their choice they are putting themselves out of business. This trick is pulled a lot. You hear it regarding talks with Iran over nuclear weapons for instance. It's a way of justifying what we're doing which twists things and should not be used. If there is justification just be straight about what it is, as you are. Is your reaction equally strong when a restaurant owner is forced out of business because he violate health codes. Perhaps his employees don't wash their hands when they leave the bathroom or he doesn't refrigerate meat used in the restaurant because he doesn't believe in the germ theory of disease? Yes we are forcing people out of business when they don't comply with rules that protect all of us. I don;t see why you feel we need to make a big statement to that effect. Perhaps something along the lines of " Joe is being forced to close his restaurant because his failure to understand basic concepts of hygiene is poisoning all of us" or "Sam is being forced to close his pharmacy because his failure to understand basic concepts of medical ethics is putting us at risk of death and harm from unwanted pregnancies and he feels his right to express his religious beliefs trumps our right to medical care". That would satisfy your requirement but it seems a bit cumbersome to have to make this announcement every time we discuss something like this.
This law in no way forces them out of business. They have a choice.This is a mean trick.
Either follow the law or go out of business. It's their choice.This is no different than saying it's a slaves choice to be whipped. It's his choice, work or be whipped. It is forced because which ever option they select it is forced, meaning forced against their will. Friggin' libertarians, there should be some sort of pesticide to get rid of them. Slaves did not have a vote. Slaves did not have laws protecting them against abuse. Slaves did not have the right to organize. Slavery was not regulated. There were no slave ship inspectors.