Christine Gregoire's stem cell ads seemed to have disappeared from the airwaves following the deserved bashing they received from the local press (here, here, and here) and a response from the Rossi campaign that pivoted from stem cells to directly question Gregoire's integrity.
In their place, her campaign is running this:
Ah, yes. With economic woes topping the headlines and a state budget in serious impending trouble, by all means debating whether or not pharmacists should be required to dispense Plan B seems like a logical choice. Oh, and Dino Rossi hates victims of the heinous crime of rape...didn't you know?
In contrast, Rossi is holding Gregoire's feet to the fire for her semantic game of denial about the state's looming budget deficit:
There's a similar radio ad also running on the topic.
Which subject do you think remaining undecided voters find more relevant?
Posted by Eric Earling at September 27, 2008 05:53 PM | Email ThisCut the H out of State government and their BS regulation NOW!
Vote Dino, we need massive relief NOW!
Whatever sticks - they just keep that one running until election day and hope for the best.
Great campaign plan!?!
Posted by: deadwood on September 27, 2008 07:01 PMWhose liberty is more impaired? The pharmacist who is compelled on threat of job loss to dispense a drug that he/she thinks kills human life or the woman who has to go down the street to another pharmacy to exercise her right to choose?
This issues demonstrates the Left is closer to totalitarianism than the Right.
I don't think the ad is politically wise on Gregoire's part. But I find it very troubling on top of that.
Posted by: b2 on September 27, 2008 07:09 PMThere is no way the democrats can place the blame on anyone else besides themselves. This I why I'll never vote democrat; they will never take a leadership position and actually do something. They will always point the finger while sitting on their hands (interesting paradox).
I especially liked when she took credit for the 1% cap on taxes. Wasn't that forced down the State Legislature's and the democrats' throat via the initiative process, the same process the democrats want to outlaw? So far, everything Gregoire has said is a lie and she continues to lie. This is not the type of person I want for Washington.
Posted by: Thomas B. on September 27, 2008 07:45 PMGregoire lied about stem cells, she lied about the budget, and she's lying in this commercial. Ugh.
Posted by: Thomas B. on September 27, 2008 07:52 PMNot according to Dino Rossi, who has never retracted his condemnation of I-120's passage.
Whose liberty is more impaired? The pharmacist who is compelled on threat of job loss to dispense a drug that he/she thinks kills human life or the woman who has to go down the street to another pharmacy to exercise her right to choose?
This illustrates the problem with urban elitism. Many women live in areas where there is no other pharmacy for miles. Getting denied prescribed medication can cause serious problems for the patient, which is why we don't allow pharmacists to practice medicine.
But hey, when that lesbian pharmacist tells you how The Great Goddess forbids Viagra, you'll understand, right?
Posted by: tensor on September 27, 2008 07:53 PMMany women live in areas where there is no other pharmacy for miles.
Where are these places with only one pharmacist for miles? I've been to the most remote places in Washington and even the Wal Mart has more than one pharmacist. Stop lying and acknowledge that if there is only one pharmacist, then medical care cannot be denied.
Posted by: Thomas B. on September 27, 2008 08:00 PMWhat happened to all the money from the height of the housing boom? What happened to WAMU and the 5000 high paying jobs? What did you do to help mitigate or prevent these disasters? Gregoire gave some money to ACORN, but people are still losing their housing, people still can't buy houses, banks are still failing, the state budget is still in shambles. What have you done Gregoire?
Posted by: Thomas B. on September 27, 2008 08:09 PMWaMu (my former bank) was a federally-chartered institution, so you should ask the federal (non)regulators appointed by Bush, who believed in letting banks make bad loans. Nice to hear you believe in governmental activism, though.
Posted by: tensor on September 27, 2008 08:12 PMNope. My high school principal believed that so-called 'learning' from any book other than the Bible was the devil's work.
"Tensor, are you arguing that the government should force vegans to serve meat?"
Are you saying that a person who refuses to serve meat should apply for employment at a steakhouse?
Posted by: tensor on September 27, 2008 08:19 PMThe problem with your argument is that the waitress at Outback who is vegan wouldn't take a job where 90%+ of her customers require her to do something she finds morally objectionable. The mechanic wouldn't take a job where 100% of his work involved internal combustion.
RU-487 pills are most likely only a tiny part of what a pharmacist dispenses--yet you want to force some of them to do something they consider morally wrong or they can't be pharmacists in the State of Washington.
What's next? Would you force a physician to perform abortions? Or if I-1000 passes to do assisted suicides?
Posted by: b2 on September 27, 2008 08:31 PMEVERY court ruling on this has supported the pharmacists. And that's the way it should be.
And, BTW? In the event I ever need Viagra, which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the map: If the pharmacist tells me they won't dispense it, then I will go somewhere that does.
You know... like a woman wanting the MAP could go somewhere else? Like that?
Posted by: Hinton on September 27, 2008 08:33 PMWhy does the percentage matter?
"RU-487 pills are most likely only a tiny part of what a pharmacist dispenses--yet you want to force some of them to do something they consider morally wrong or they can't be pharmacists in the State of Washington."
But the pharmacist took the job knowing that dispensing this medication might be part of that job. Furthermore, the pharmacist is not licensed to practice medicine. What if a pharmacist refused to dispense Viagra?
"This is your captain speaking, and I don't believe in radar, air-traffic control, or avoiding turbulent air."
Posted by: tensor on September 27, 2008 08:38 PMThey can appropriately be applied to her.
The chrissy queen cannot convince voters of ANYTHING on the imperative issues. She has so aptly proven herself to be an utter failure on them she CAN'T use them for ads, so she has to find the squishy issues (abortion, stem cells, Plan B), the issues she can hook/keep her rabid followers: the feminuts and the far left girly boys who love them.
Shes trying to secure to her base.
Whatever.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 27, 2008 08:39 PMHinton (hearts) judicial activism!
I'm still a bit mystified as to how a pharmacist -- or anyone -- gets to intervene between doctor and patient.
"...I will be changing doctors because of this. This is too bad, because she's a great doctor."
I'm sure she'll get plenty of other patients. Seriously, you choose your doctors based on their political views? Wow. How politically aware you are, comrade!
Posted by: tensor on September 27, 2008 08:46 PMWell, thanks to President Bush's politically-correct restriction of stem-cell research, I have to take what I can get. (If only I, like you, could recognize him for his scientific genius! Sadly, reality has such a liberal bias...)
Posted by: tensor on September 27, 2008 08:49 PMIf an employee refuses to dispense a medication, that's between that employee and their boss.
It's simple, really.
Posted by: Hinton on September 27, 2008 09:00 PMSeriously, that response is irrelevant, citizen!
A doctor has the right to refuse to perform an abortion... a phramacist, who is not a medical doctor nor constrained by the laws of a medical doctor, has the right not to dispense a drug... like they have the right to refuse to sell tires.
You're making this much more difficult then you need to.
R-20, I-120, I-694 -- do you see a pattern here? Dino Rossi does, and he'd rather not talk about it...
Posted by: tensor on September 27, 2008 09:11 PMYou can choose your doctors based on their politics. I will choose mine based on their medical expertise. Each of us will get the treatment he deserves.
Posted by: tensor on September 27, 2008 09:14 PMI love those liberals who think they get to decide which "right" trumps any other.
The courts have ruled on it.
MY pharmacist won.
The bottom line is she is jerking atround the feelings of those who are easily led and can't bother to discriminately THINK.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 27, 2008 09:27 PMYou must be one of those people who don't care what the sign says, you just bully on.
You probably take "We reserve the right to refuse service" as some sort of challenge.
Back to Hinton's point, if it's a private business, do they not have a right to say no?
If a family owned pharmacy does not carry RU486, are they violating any law?
Can a chain pharmacy (such as WalMart or Savon, etc) not carry RU486? And if they do, isn't it the pharmacist job responsibility, as an employee of said entity, to dispense? If the pharmacists at the chain do not follow the policy, they will be disciplined. Or, knowing the policy, can leave... Or not even apply. Get it?
Unless they are union, then they get a rep involved, continue to act in disregard for policy, and still get to keep their job.
Hey.... The pharmacists should unionize. Then they could not dispense whatever they disagreed with and still be employed... OMG!!! They could strike!!
How fun.
And don't start on the sanctity of a majority vote on an initiative. The Democrats have proven that if they don't agree with it, while your precious majority may, they'll just file suit. Hmmm. Didn't that just happen recently?
Posted by: Chris on September 27, 2008 09:31 PMThe woman who shows up at the pharmacy has a philosophy that views the MAP as OK. The pharmacist has a philosophy that views the MAP as murder. Why should the state have any right to intervene and decide whose *philosophy* is right? Wouldn't that be a violation of separation of church & state? You know, where the state comes in and says how I can and cannot practice what I believe?
Just a thought...
Posted by: Chris Luka on September 27, 2008 09:36 PMMany women live in areas where there is no other pharmacy for miles. Getting denied prescribed medication can cause serious problems for the patient, which is why we don't allow pharmacists to practice medicine.
Tensor, I solved this little "problem" for you a few weeks ago. Get ready, I'm about to tell you something groundbreaking and shocking!
There is this thing called "The Mail". Maybe you have heard of it? The guy who comes around every day to drop off the ads or your welfare check? You know him, with the "USPS" logo and a gray and dark blue uniform...
Anyway, believe it or not you can actually order your drugs with that other modern marvel, the phone, and then the pharmacy will deliver the drugs to you VIA THE MAIL!
I know, it's completely mindblowing that you can get products through The Mail. Call a pharmacy and have them Mail you (that's when we use the term "Mail" as a verb) your prescription.
But it even gets better. You know that magic word-box that you are clicking on to see all these words? That is called a "computer" and it connects to something called the "Internet". And thanks to the modern miracles afforded by St. Algore, we can use this "Internet" to let your "computer" talk to a pharmacy.
So - hold on now, I know this is advanced stuff here - you can use your "computer" to talk to a Pharmacy via the "Internet". Then when you are done the Pharmacy will send your drugs via The Mail.
Isn't modern technology wonderful!
And it completely obliterates your strawman of how some people live miles and miles from a pharmacy and thus cannot get the drugs they need...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 27, 2008 10:01 PMWant to make an appointment?
Call Judy Kimelman, M.D.'s office directly at (206) 682-5800
Primary Office Location:
1101 Madison St.
Suite 950
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 682-5800
Fax: (206) 233-9657
The free market (hallowed be thy name) says the *customer* is always right. Are you advocating state intervention in the market?
"The Democrats have proven that if they don't agree with it, while your precious majority may, they'll just file suit. Hmmm. Didn't that just happen recently?"
Dino Rossi ordered the election-challenge lawsuit in 2005. I'm sorry, you were saying...?
"And it completely obliterates your strawman of how some people live miles and miles from a pharmacy and thus cannot get the drugs they need..."
You see, medical issues can be timely. And while your faith in the speed of government agencies is touching, I'm still wondering why anyone can get between a patient and doctor. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? BUELLER?
If your politically-correct pharmacist does not "believe" in the germ theory of disease, then he does not have to wash his hands before preparing your medicines, right?
Posted by: tensor on September 27, 2008 11:42 PMI don't really how the "Sonics" were a problem that affected the state as a whole. (I'm pretty sure there a people in the TriCities, Spokane, Moses Lake, Yakima, that couldn't give a rat's a** about the Sonics. If anything, the Sonics were Nickles problem.
As for Safeco and WAMU, ever heard of this thing called the free market and capitalism? I know the Dems apparently have never heard of it. Otherwise there would have never tried to go against economic laws by legislating banks (read:forcing) to issue loans to people who couldn't afford them. Or to people who ignored the basic principle that housing prices follow inflation, and were betting that housing prices would forever exceed inflation, thus causing them to buy houses with undocumented loans, and then flip them. And yes, tensor, is was by and large the Dems that created the downfall of WAMU, and this economic crisis we have. I know people like to blame Bush when the facts state otherwise. Sort of like attributing everything to global warming when there are no facts to support that.
Posted by: Dave on September 27, 2008 11:48 PMJust because a doctor prescribes something to you doesn't mean you're entitled to it the expense of someone else (be it their money OR their values). If a doctor prescribed that I needed more exercise, it wouldn't mean that any and every gym HAS to give me a membership. Pharmacists have rights too and folks like you and Planned Parenthood want to stomp all over them. A pharmacist doesn't owe you a drug simply because you have a piece of paper saying that you "need" it (and I use the word "need" VERY loosely in a subject that revolves around contraception...). It's his business, and if he doesn't want to carry/sell a certain product, that's his right. I mean, really... can you say, "Imposing your morality on others?"
Pharmacists do not take an oath to nor are they legally or professionally obligated to sell any and every drug on the market.
Here's something else to think about: suppose I'm a lawyer. That doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to take your case - regardless of how desperate you are. If you have one day left to live and you come asking me to draft your will, I'll tell you to take a hike. Why? Because I don't do wills. I hate writing wills. You couldn't pay me enough to do one. Just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean I'm obligated to take every case that comes through my door. Nor should a pharmacist have to fill any prescription he doesn't want to.
How would you feel about a bookstore that refuses to stock and sell bibles, and a group of Christians comes along and browbeats them, saying they should HAVE to?
You know the worst part about this? At best, an only extreme minority of pharmacists refuse to sell birth control. For every one pharmacist that won't sell birth control, there's got to be 10,000 pharmacists that will. But that's not good enough for the likes of you and Planned Parenthood. They can't just leave the pharmacist alone and go all the way across the street to get their birth control - they have to beat him into submission. So much for their so-called "freedom of choice" they're constantly pontificating about.
Suppose you walk into a Jewish Deli. Should you be able to get a ham sandwich there? Or does the Jewish owner with his religious aversion to pork get to say, "Sorry, you'll have to go somewhere else if you want that particular item. I don't believe in selling that." Or do we mandate that Jews sell pork despite their personal values? At what point does your right to get whatever you want trump their right to run their business according to their own morals and values?
Birth control isn't about detrimental health issues - it's about preventing unwanted inconveniences in your life. Not getting your contraception isn't going to kill you. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever died because someone wouldn't give them ortho-tricyclen.)
A pharmacist is as much a bystander to your pregnancy as I am. Imagine this scenario: you had a condom break and you knocked on my door asking me for a ride to go pick up the MAP, and I told you to take a hike. You subsequently became pregnant. My refusal to give you a ride does not mean I caused your pregnancy. You (and the sperm provider) did that all by yourself. You simply couldn't find anyone willing to help you prevent it. And that's entirely YOUR problem. Maybe it makes me a big fat jerk when I refuse to help you, but it does NOT mean that I had anything to do with you and your subsequent pregnancy.
Here's a fun thought experiment: John is a pharmacist, Jane is a loose chick with a scrip for the morning after pill. Only this time, instead of Pharmacist John's personal feelings getting in the way, Loose Jane simply doesn't have the money to pay for it. Should Loose Jane still get the pills? Remember, you guys are talking about "need" here. How much power does Loose Jane's scrip have over Pharmacist John?
Just because you have a right to abortion, doesn't mean you have a right to have someone provide you one. A service provider is not obligated to service your every need and desire.
"Need" does not create "right".
A pharmacist) isn't a position to judge why women need birth control. The issue here isn't ABOUT the woman OR her particular needs. At all. It has nothing to do with her whatsoever.
Instead, the REAL issue is whether pharmacists should be forced to do something they're morally opposed to. That is, the issue isn't about women trying to get a certain item, it's about the item itself. And some pharmacists are opposed to it - the same way a Jewish or Muslim deli owner is opposed to pork. It's not that they malevolently want to screw you out of getting a ham sandwich - they simply don't want to do something against their beliefs. So the question remains, can we justify forcing them?
And I think the answer is no. Forcing people to do things they're morally opposed to ain't what personal freedom and liberty are about.
A fine question. I think you need to balance the needs of both sides. Getting medical needs filled is more important than getting pork. You are mostly correct that "not getting your contraception isn't going to kill you" (although there is a nontrivial rate of death from pregnancy and childbirth), but few people would agree with your calling it just an "inconvenience", either.
Posted by: Bruce on September 28, 2008 12:21 AMSo, there are gymnasiums which exist to deny entry to your fat butt? Do tell.
"Pharmacists have rights too and folks like you and Planned Parenthood want to stomp all over them."
Your defense of teetotalers behind the bar of your local public house is truly impressive. You do know that alcoholic beverages, like other recreational drugs, have little to no health value? You will so learn, every time you order one!
A pharmacist doesn't owe you a drug simply because you have a piece of paper saying that you "need" it...
All your chemotherapy are belong to us (pharmacists)!
"(and I use the word "need" VERY loosely in a subject that revolves around contraception...)"
Because Good Dr. Glibertarian here has never heard of off-label uses, therefore they do not exist.
It's his business, and if he doesn't want to carry/sell a certain product, that's his right. I mean, really... can you say, "Imposing your morality on others?
Yes, this pharmacist is imposing his own judgement upon that of the patient and doctor. This latter relationship has been recognized, for centuries, as private and confidential. Some people just have no respect for tradition. (Hint: we don't normally call such persons 'conservatives'.)
"Pharmacists do not take an oath to nor are they legally or professionally obligated to sell any and every drug on the market."
Strangely, no citation from a professional code of conduct appears here. I wonder why not?
"Here's something else to think about: suppose I'm a lawyer."
I'd really, really rather not think about that, thank you.
"That doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to take your case - regardless of how desperate you are."
I'd never be that desperate, but hey, give yourself all the compliments you can. No one else 'will'...
"I don't do wills. I hate writing wills."
Do you advertise this in advance, or do you wait until your client is ready to sign before admitting that you haven't done the work? Because some advance warning, especially in the hypothetical example you just made up, might be fair to your spurned client.
"How would you feel about a bookstore that refuses to stock and sell bibles, and a group of Christians comes along and browbeats them, saying they should HAVE to?"
You Christians, the majority religion in the United States since colonial days, certainly do feel put upon, don't you? Since you asked, there are entire bookstores dedicated to Christianity. Have you ever, ever been to a bookstore which refused to stock a Bible? Since when did reading material equate to time-dependent medicine?
"For every one pharmacist that won't sell birth control, there's got to be 10,000 pharmacists that will. But that's not good enough for the likes of you and Planned Parenthood. They can't just leave the pharmacist alone and go all the way across the street to get their birth control - they have to beat him into submission. So much for their so-called "freedom of choice" they're constantly pontificating about."
Yeah, we hold the radical idea, which has only been around for centuries, that medical decisions should be between doctor and patient.
"Suppose you walk into a Jewish Deli. Should you be able to get a ham sandwich there?"
Again, does the sign on the door say "kosher", or do I need to get all the way to the cash register to discover this? Those lunchtime lines can get really long, and I'd like some time to get lunch elsewhere.
"Or do we mandate that Jews sell pork despite their personal values?"
Again, a person claiming to operate a full-menu deli should make such exceptions clear from the start, not wait until the customer is ready to pay, and then give a long-winded, uninvited lecture. (BTW, there's a HUGE difference between not eating meat, and refusing to serve it to others. See my hypothetical vegan waiter, above.)
"Birth control isn't about detrimental health issues - it's about preventing unwanted inconveniences in your life."
You really don't know anything about the female reproductive system, do you? Try asking about "off-label" uses sometime, assuming you can get any self-respecting pharmacist to speak with you after this.
"A pharmacist is as much a bystander to your pregnancy as I am."
Um, if the pharmacist refused to give emergency contraception to a rape victim, then that statement applies only if you're the rapist.
"Imagine this scenario: you had a condom break and you knocked on my door asking me for a ride to go pick up the MAP, and I told you to take a hike."
You're a cabbie?
"Here's a fun thought experiment: John is a pharmacist, Jane is a loose chick with a scrip for the morning after pill. Only this time, instead of Pharmacist John's personal feelings getting in the way, Loose Jane simply doesn't have the money to pay for it. Should Loose Jane still get the pills? Remember, you guys are talking about "need" here. How much power does Loose Jane's scrip have over Pharmacist John?"
The entire argument, up to now, assumed that Jane did have the money to pay for the medicine her doctor ordered, but the pharmacist refused to take both money and scrip. Are you admitting you've lost that argument?
"Just because you have a right to abortion, doesn't mean you have a right to have someone provide you one. A service provider is not obligated to service your every need and desire."
Just because I'm sitting in this yellow car, outside the theatre, does not mean you can pay me for a ride to the bar. I don't support your drug addiction, sir, and I resent your implication that I would! You can walk five miles in the rain tonight, you lush!
"The issue here isn't ABOUT the woman OR her particular needs. At all. It has nothing to do with her whatsoever."
Yep, you and Mr. Rossi have made that pretty darned clear!
"Instead, the REAL issue is whether pharmacists should be forced to do something they're morally opposed to."
When he took that mixology class, he had no idea anyone would ever ask him for an alcoholic beverage.
"Forcing people to do things they're morally opposed to ain't what personal freedom and liberty are about."
He had no choice but to go to school all of those years for his certification. What other job is there?
When the women of this state read arguments like yours, they'll think long and hard about giving power to a male who agrees with them. And that is why you folks hate this ad.
On stem cells you may have a point, but on this one you're wrong.
Whether it should be or not, this issue is much more personal to many more people than the rhetoric surrounding the budget.
Away from the high-minded discussions about conscience, the fear that a pharmacist will deny them a pill just when they need it most, and issue a moral reprimand in doing so, is likely to weigh a lot more heavily with most than the details of the state's balance sheet.
In this state, this issue is trouble for Dino, especially among women. Arguing that it's insignificant and meant just to distract is only going to make it worse.
And by the way, as some here are obviously not aware, "emergency contraception" is a different product than RU-486. The former keeps a woman from becoming pregnant, the latter actually ends a pregnancy.
Posted by: John on September 28, 2008 01:48 AMDino's ad has a reasonable point about how just two weeks what we all knew she was proud of denying.
Christine's ad is read blindly by a doctor that has a serious problem of denying patient access to affordable government and access to gambling on line. Patients are forced to pay a lot of taxes for little road service or if they want to gamble they must sneak down to the reservation. That is Not leadership just emotionalship or something.
Now the horror of this; they might have to go down the block to kill their baby and this is POV is considered an adult position. This doc may know about medicine but has, along with Christine, serious character flaws. This is such a illogical argument. Tragic to see people who are this age without the ability to lead just going after peoples emotions.
But hey maybe just maybe the thought of living under leadership is too much for this doctor to take.
Dino Plans to make all Starbucks Mandatory Smoking Establishments?
Dino plans to make all Prius owners pay a carbon tax because the batteries are so bad for the environment?
Dino plans to let us use the good old banned laundry detergent?
Dino hates BHO.
What is next from the Queen of emotions?
Where is the response ad on the gambling pact?
Then why bother enabling an intrusive denial of services to patients?
"Just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean I'm obligated to take every case that comes through my door."
Suppose the lawyer and client agree to draft a will. As the client is entering the hospital, the paralegal announces her religious beliefs preclude the dead from dictating to the living, and the patient dies without a will. That is the interference in the lawyer-client relationship you're proposing.
"Not getting your contraception isn't going to kill you."
So, the rape victim has given her statement to the police, gone to her doctor, and gotten the prescription for emergency contraception. But your 'morally superior' pharmacist refuses to give it to her, so she has to find another pharmacist. Before she can do so, she conceives, so now she needs RU-486. This second pharmacist will dispense emergency contraception, but not an abortaficient! Now she needs a surgical abortion, and you call her a baby-killer. Is this the compassionate conservatism we keep hearing about?
Posted by: tensor on September 28, 2008 10:35 AMHow about you guys stay out of all interactions between a woman and her doctor, and the rest of us vote to keep any such uninvited intruders out of office?
Posted by: tensor on September 28, 2008 11:48 AMRegarding the doc in the ad and post #36.
If you are a patient of this person and you've ever sit and wait beyond your appointment time, you might want to question why she has time to be a political activist.
If you are trying to get an appointment this week and have to wait till next month, you might want to question why she has time to be a political activist.
Furthermore what she says in the ad is FALSE.. "When she looks into the eyes of a woman who has been sexually assaulted".
Excuse me doc, how often do those women wait for an appointment with YOU for EMERGENCY contraception after rape as opposed to heading to the EMERGENCY room, where, after evidence has been documented and collected, the victim would be offered the drug IMMEDIATELY.
Gee doc, I was raped last night, can you give me an Rx?
Yeah, THAT passes the smell test.
The chrissy queen is playing you for the fools you are.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 28, 2008 12:16 PMUnless, of course, the ERNurse was so rabidly 'pro-life' as to refuse, which would be her unstoppable right, correct?
Furthermore what she says in the ad is FALSE.. "When she looks into the eyes of a woman who has been sexually assaulted".
So, how many of her patients do you know? Perhaps the victim would rather talk to her doctor, instead of some strangers in the ER? I love how you cry such concern over the poor, distressed pharmacist, but have nothing but contempt for a rape victim who needs medicine which her doctor has prescribed.
Keep it up guys, you'll have aborted Dino's image as a moderate. Oh well, it was never viable anyway.
Posted by: tensor on September 28, 2008 01:21 PMFringe leftists demand that pharmacies carry this product (and in the end, it's nothing more nor less than a product... like any other) ONLY because it causes something akin to an abortion.
Are there any OTHER products they demand that pharmacies carry that are not based on their sex life?
Of course not.
So, what say the PC morons decide that private pharmacies have to sell, say, every medication known to man?
After all, unlike the MAP, some medications actually are necessary to save lives... so, doesn't that mean that ALL pharmacies EVERYWHERE have to stock EVERY drug?
Of course not. Smaller, non-chain pharmacies couldn't afford to do that... but the fringe nutters don't care. After all, how someone FEELS and the level of THEIR inconvenience CERTAINLY trumps economic law and private property rights; that is, the right of a store to stock whatever and however it wants... right?
The social engineers don't give a damn about these sorts of things. It's not like there aren't a thousand alternatives... for example, the nonsensical position that someone raped MIGHT face a "lecture."
The simple solution? Have doctors provide THIS particular drug directly. Take pharmacies out of the loop.
If NO pharmacy has to dispense this drug; if the doctors themselves dispense it, then the utterly moronic concern... that somehow, the rights of a private store owner are to be shoved aside because someone's FEELINGS might get hurt, are taken out of the equation.
Odd, isn't it? No one forces any other store to stock anything. Should I get as bent out of shape as tense because WalMart might not have foie gras?
In the end, the private pharmacists will win. This wouldn't even be an issue if Queen Chrissy the Lying Ho hadn't muscled the pharmacy board (which, come to think of it, kind of indicates there isn't any need for a pharmacy board, since Queen Chrissy the Tribal Hypocrite can just rule by edict.) into rolling over.
You see, I support the Constitution of the United States, unlike the fringers who view it as a set of mere suggestions when it interferes with their agenda.
And while their are protections concerning private property in there; I have yet to note the section that enables government to force someone to sell anything government demands to the public.
And until such a section appears... then guess what?
Folks will have the right to not carry MAP's or any other damned thing they want.
Tenser might throw an embolism over it, but that won't change it.
Posted by: Hinton on September 28, 2008 01:30 PMThen get another para-legal.
Why the hell you can't grasp this simple concept is beyond most of us.
Posted by: Hinton on September 28, 2008 01:34 PMI cannot begin to count how many times in the 16 years we used Safeway that we presented a prescription and they said 'We don't normally carry that, let me call Rite Aid to see if they have it. We'll get it from them for you".
A doctor will NOT prescribe to a rape victim.. he will GIVE it to a rape victim... immmediately.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 28, 2008 01:42 PMI cannot begin to count how many times in the 16 years we used Safeway that we presented a prescription and they said 'We don't normally carry that, let me call Rite Aid to see if they have it. We'll get it from them for you".
A doctor will NOT prescribe to a rape victim.. he will GIVE it to a rape victim... immmediately.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 28, 2008 01:42 PM Dino Rossi did not order the
lawsuit in 2005 regarding the election contest. It was actually the state Republican party that decided to file the
lawsuit and it was there idea.
Dino didn't go to the state party and ask them to contest the election. In fact they went
to Dino and told him they were
going to file a lawsuit.
His response was as recall that's'fine but I will not be
financially responible for it.
I know you dont like Dino but
in the future get your facts straight before you attack him
again.
Since you're so concerned about rights (and have been schooled about your strawman concerning access to prescription drugs), I'm sure you're all for having firearms available at any and all business that wishes to carry them. I shouldn't have to walk more than a mile to a store to get a firearm, which is a Constitutional Right.
Thus I demand that Safeway, Top Foods, and QFC carry firearms because it's my right and a firearm may protect me from harm.
So when do you come and join a picket to demand that the grocery stores carry guns? I mean, they are infringing on my rights by not carrying such items (by your logic). And they cannot make their own decisions based upon their own ethics or morality or positions if those force me to have to go further to buy a firearm.
Come on board the 2nd Amendment Express!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 28, 2008 03:14 PMPosted by Andy at September 28, 2008 03:21 PM
Actually Andy, the biggest celebration will be by the Gregoire's at the Governor's Mansion.
Gregoire has screwed the Budget so badly with $8 BILLION of increased spending to pay-off the Unions with salary & benefits plus thousands of new State Employees in the face of a recession...that losing is her best option.
Gregoire has 39 years in government. She will get a fat Pension of 60% of her Governor's Salary...and then become a Lobbyist/Consultant.
And the biggest plus of all for Gregoire losing is she will no longer have to listen to HorsesA$$es like David KLOWNstein and his Northwest Division of Lunatic Moonbats any more!
Whatever sticks - they just keep that one running until election day and hope for the best.
Great campaign plan!?!
I'm not so much sure it's a great campaign plan as the only one available to her.
What the hell else is she going to do? Run on her record? Run on her personality?
Do you realize, seriously, how utterly you get squashed every time you post. You are such a surface thinker.
Posted by: MrRcguy on September 28, 2008 05:13 PMThere was an article on the Parkinson's sufferer in the local newspaper (Bellingham Herald - Lortz is local) and it prompted me to write this letter to the editor.\:
Stem cell work doesn't have to rely on embryos
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/letters/story/570786.html
It was lightly edited but didn't alter my intent.
And for those concerned with finding a pharmacy near where they live, I love about 30 miles due east in farming/timber country and there are five pharmacies within a 20 minute drive of my house.
DaveH
Posted by: DaveH on September 28, 2008 06:57 PMI'm Voting Rossi, this is not the time to be piling on more taxes!
Posted by: GS on September 28, 2008 07:14 PMIt seems to me that the real meat of your argument stems from your view that no one should be allowed to come between a decision made between a patient and his/her doctor. So let's remove the pharmacist from the equation. What if (on the basis of his/her morals) a physician refused to PRESCRIBE emergency contraception? Is that wrong as well?
Posted by: Chris Luka on September 28, 2008 07:24 PMGregoire spoke and acted like she was trapped. She also looked very frail, almost like her cancer has returned.
Postman did a great job.
Posted by: The Pirate on September 28, 2008 07:30 PMNever did I think the commenters here would actually admit that rape victims could and should be denied emergency medication prescribed by their doctors. I had thought you would give me a huge runaround, claim that I was nastily distorting Mr. Rossi's real position, yadda yadda yadda. But no, you just flatly admitted it! One commenter even went out of his way to describe a user of oral contraceptives as a "loose" woman. I hadn't heard that slang term in decades! Thanks so much for telling us, yet again, that your use of the word "morality" owes nothing to any dictionary I've ever used -- and that goes for a majority of the state's voters, time and time again.
"It seems to me that the real meat of your argument stems from your view that no one should be allowed to come between a decision made between a patient and his/her doctor. So let's remove the pharmacist from the equation. What if (on the basis of his/her morals) a physician refused to PRESCRIBE emergency contraception? Is that wrong as well?"
I don't know what kind of doctor would refuse to prescribe safe and effective medication to a rape victim, but I guess it could happen. I would hope every patient has a deeply personal conversation with his or her physician at the start of the practice, as to avoid such a scene, but yes, I agree that a doctor has the license to practice medicine, and can so refuse if he or she wants.
(BTW -- did you notice we were talking about having pharmacists refuse to dispense medication? Why, do you think, we have not said one word about doctors refusing to prescribe medication? I mean, if it's such a huge moral decision, why have few to no doctors agreed?)
Then get another para-legal.
Why the hell you can't grasp this simple concept is beyond most of us.
Because I didn't fail reading comprehension? The paralegal's tale has a time limit, just like a rape victim faces. The lawyer in my story was surprised when his assistant refused to do the thing for which she was granted employment. Dino Rossi wants rape victims to have a similarly nasty surprise, because getting raped isn't torture enough, the victim must also listen to a 'morality' lecture as well. This is some great 'morality' you people have; is it any wonder we liberals react with laughter and scorn when you lecture it to us?
"A doctor will NOT prescribe to a rape victim.. he will GIVE it to a rape victim... immmediately [sic]."
Still don't know much about medical practice, do we?
"Thus I demand that Safeway, Top Foods, and QFC carry firearms because it's my right and a firearm may protect me from harm."
Uh, Dan, now, read this carefully. A patient gets a prescription from a doctor, and takes it to a specialized store, called a pharmacy. (A 'pharmacy' is like a gun shop, but with drugs behind the secured counters, instead of guns. Get it?) Hence, a patient expects to get medicine at a pharmacy! (Wow, I bet you're still reeling.) Let me know how your picketing outside the gun shop goes. Will they add beans and bread to their shelves if you yammer long enough? Food is essential for life, y'know.
While emergency contraception is a new use for oral contraceptives, "the pill" has existed for the entire career of the average working pharmacist, so this 'moral dilemma' has existed for decades. We've only heard about it since the anti-choice side realized they'd never get the abortion bans reinstated, and have since invented sneakier ways to restrict a woman's right to choose.
By the way, there are Roman Catholic nuns who take oral contraceptives. The hormones in these medications have other uses, besides just contraception. I would just love to see your 'moral' pharmacist deliver that lecture!
You said "I don't know what kind of doctor would refuse to prescribe safe and effective medication to a rape victim, but I guess it could happen... but yes, I agree that a doctor has the license to practice medicine, and can so refuse if he or she wants."
First off, I know of many doctors that feel that emergency contraception is wrong. They feel that way because emergency contraception can act as an abortifacient. In that sense, any pro-life doctor would view prescribing the MAP as a potential killing of a human life.
That is why, even in cases of rape or incest, some doctors and pharmacists would not provide access to the MAP. It makes (in their view) two crimes where only one currently exists.
The fact that YOU view abortion as OK doesn't change the fact that a substantial part of the U.S. population feels differently. Part of that group includes doctors & (gasp!) pharmacists. How is it that you feel you have a right to impose your moral beliefts on them?
I expect that your answer will involve an assertion that abortion is morally acceptable in certain cases. If so, then the crux of this argument really boils down to the pro-life vs pro-choice debate over abortion, and this whole "doctor/patient relationship" argument of yours is nothing more than a screen to avoid having the real debate. Instead of having to deal with the issue of whether abortion takes a life, you get to demonize those horrible pharmacists for causing women to suffer.
Don't misunderstand me -- I *do* believe that victims of rape or incest DO suffer, and greatly. However, my pro-life views lead me to believe that abortion only compounds the suffering by committing a murder on top of the crimes already committed.
Posted by: Chris Luka on September 28, 2008 10:06 PMRAPE victims will not be running to any mean old selfish pharmacists the next morning waving their script.
Anyone else with that piece of paper can find more pharmacists willing to help her abdicate responsibility for her actions than not.
You are only arguing this because it's ABORTION... oooh, the right that dare not be crossed.
Just because a doctor prescribes it, does NOT mean anyone is ENTITLED to it: not a fancy mattress for a bad back, not a vacation in Arizona for asthma, not a heart because yours is black.
Doctors perform a function for a fee. They don't work because you NEED them. They work because they CHOOSE to for reward, perhaps monetary reward, perhaps one less quantifiable. Most doctors are capable of performing an abortion but doctors are not REQUIRED to perform abortions. Many refuse to and more are refusing to every day, because they morally object to the procedure. Perhaps you'd like to hold a gun to their head and force them to kill babies in the womb?
The whole pharmacist thing is moot anyway.
You lose.
And the chrissy queen and those advising her are morons for introducing a total non-issue in a dishonest way into the debate. Of course WE all know why she did: to keep her pro-bort supporters pouring money into her coffers.
What "serious problem" will be caused by a patient not receiving Plan B?
Your new waitress at The Outback is a vegan. I hope you didn't make the 'mis-steak' of ordering something she refuses to deliver to you- causing her such a loss of liberty!
Oh please, The Shark already tried this one. A vegan who refuses to serve steak wouldn't work at a steak house. Pharmacists, on the other hand have existed long before Plan B, and they exist to help patients relieve pain from illness and injury. Plan B exists to end any potential pregnancy, which is neither illness or injury.
Do I even need to address the mechanic analogy?
What if a pharmacist refused to dispense Viagra?
So what?!
While emergency contraception is a new use for oral contraceptives, "the pill" has existed for the entire career of the average working pharmacist, so this 'moral dilemma' has existed for decades.
And it's always been their right not to dispense these drugs.
No one is claiming that you lack "reading comprehension" skills. What we're claiming is that you lack "critical thinking and reasoning" skills.
You can play the "what if" game until the cows come home. The "time limit" equation has absolutely ZERO relevance to this issue, in the sense that a "rape victim" (and face it, tens, your focus on "rape victims" as opposed to the vast majority of women who would use this medication, essentially recreational "engagers" in sex; just points out the weakness of your argument; rape victims seeking medical attention most likely would go to a hospital... and the numbers of hospital pharmacies that don't carry this drug is, well, how many, again?) has THREE DAYS to use this medication... and 1 in 10 will become pregnant anyway.
That is, they have THREE DAYS to get and use this product.
Are you telling us that ANYONE can't find this drug somewhere, somehow, in THREE FRICKING DAYS?
So, since the time issue is irrelevant, let's move on, shall we?
The level of surprise? Again, irrelevant. A lawyer can make a call, get another para-legal in an hour in most cases, and the issue is taken care of.
Your efforts to present as if their are no other lawyers, no other para-legals... and no other alternatives to dispense this medication speaks well to your level of stubbornness, but does nothing to address reality.
"Still don't know much about medical practice, do we?"
Well, with each and every post you've put up in this thread, you HAVE done a stellar job of confirming your ignorance on this matter. Thanks for asking.
Obviously, you feel strongly about this issue. But frankly, no one cares how you "feel," you have consistently failed to provide ANY LEGAL POSITION to back up your position. No legal argument... no constitutional provision... nothing.
I get that such is the hallmark of the leftist. You look at situations and because they make you "feel" bad, you ignore legal and Constitutional ramifications and demand that the rights of others be trampled so YOU will "feel" better, no matter the cost in terms of rights or in terms of money.
I also note that you have chosen to ignore the simplest solution to this problem: have doctors that are engaged in this situation dispense the drug itself, taking pharmacies out of the equation.
Now... why is that?
I'm not interested in your morality play. I'm not interested in the application of a pro-life versus pro-abortion philosophy here. What guides me on this is the concept of RIGHTS. And neither you, nor the state, has the RIGHT to demand that ANY private entity sell ANYTHING, for ANY reason.
"Dino Rossi wants rape victims to have a similarly nasty surprise, because getting raped isn't torture enough, the victim must also listen to a 'morality' lecture as well."
A total and complete crock. Here, let me help you with this:
"Queen Chrissy wants private entities to have a similarly nasty surprise, because government regulation, overhead costs and the Constitution off the United States isn't support enough, the owner must also listen to a 'morality' lecture as well from those who would seek to impose THEIR morality on a private business."
I recognize there are two sides to this argument. Unfortunately for you, one side has to lose. And every indication is that the side in question is yours... and besides your outrage; again, completely irrelevant... you have provided nothing legally persuasive to change this outcome.
A patient's right to any medication is only superseded by a private entities right not to dispense it based on non-discriminatory grounds. That is, no pharmacy may dispense a drug based on a suspect classification, but all pharmacies can refuse to dispense any drug to everyone... as long as it IS to everyone the same... but even then, the claim would be discrimination.
However, to suggest that ALL pharmacies EVERYWHERE MUST dispense this medication is to suggest that ALL doctors EVERYWHERE MUST, for example, perform abortions on demand.
And for someone of your vast medical knowledge, even you know that to be false.
The LAW, tensor. Got any? If not, well, bud, you and those who think like you are SOL.
Posted by: Hinton on September 29, 2008 06:10 AMTalk about stuck on stupid. If your raped you usually call the cops. Then taken to a ER which carries the pill that's need.
Gezzz.
As a medic I taken a few in my years.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 29, 2008 07:22 AMThe Obama campaign wouldn't detail the strategy behind finding an individual to discuss such a sensitive topic, but did suggest the ad may be aimed at underscoring their candidate's support for abortion rights and ongoing effort to retain those women that backed Hillary Clinton in the primary.
"Choice is an important issue and we're going to continue talking about it in battleground states through the election," said spokesman Bill Burton.
Virginia is one of those swing states that Obama is especially focused on, and that's where one rape victim received the request to appear in an ad.
What a slimeball.
What's worse? Making a customer schlep across the street with her piece of paper or exploiting a rape victim for political gain?
However, a pharmacist is not allowed to do the same.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 29, 2008 03:21 PMYou could do a great service for our local public health, by identifying the doctors who "feel" that contraception is the same as abortion. However, before you do, please take care to have extensive documentation, strong enough to stand up in court, because defamation lawsuits can get ugly and expensive.
"That is why, even in cases of rape or incest, some doctors and pharmacists would not provide access to the MAP. It makes (in their view) two crimes where only one currently exists."
It certainly does, even if harassing a rape victim is just a moral crime, not a legal one.
"The fact that YOU view abortion as OK doesn't change the fact that a substantial part of the U.S. population feels differently. Part of that group includes doctors & (gasp!) pharmacists. How is it that you feel you have a right to impose your moral beliefts on them?"
That "substantial part" of Washington state's electorate has lost every statewide ballot on this issue, including the one (I-120, in 1991) which codified Roe. It is they who continue trying to impose their beliefs upon us. They know they will never get the abortion or contraceptive bans reinstated, so they're reduced to sneaking around, victimizing random patients. Quite a beautiful, shining example of 'morality' it is, to tell a rape victim she's a slut and a killer!
"Just because a doctor prescribes it, does NOT mean anyone is ENTITLED to it: not a fancy mattress for a bad back, not a vacation in Arizona for asthma, not a heart because yours is black."
The patient has a prescription for legal medicine, an means of payment. You claim she should be denied her medication, due to some religious belief she does not share. Both imposing religion, and restricting the free market, a two-fer! Makes you proud to be a glibertarian, does it not?
What "serious problem" will be caused by a patient not receiving Plan B?
Getting called a baby-killer when she needs a surgical abortion, because she has an objection to bearing her rapist's child. Did someone signing with a female name really ask such a question?
"A vegan who refuses to serve steak wouldn't work at a steak house."
But according to Mr. Rossi, she has the right to work there, and to refuse to perform a legal part of her job description.
"Pharmacists, on the other hand have existed long before Plan B, and they exist to help patients relieve pain from illness and injury. Plan B exists to end any potential pregnancy, which is neither illness or injury."
"Plan B" is a new use for an old medication -- birth-control pills. The latter have existed for over four decades, since long before the average pharmacist began school. In recent years, the FDA has accepted the practice of using a large does of "the pill" to prevent pregnancy after insemination. That's all "Plan B" is, a new use for existing medication. And for a woman whose reproductive tract was just violated, pregnancy might be even more dangerous than usual. In any case, the decision to use Plan B is one between the woman and her doctor, not some third party who happens to be in the way.
"And neither you, nor the state, has the RIGHT to demand that ANY private entity sell ANYTHING, for ANY reason."
We're talking about a business which stocks a legal product. One of the employees of that business refuses to sell the product to an eligible, paying customer, even though the employee took the job knowing that dispensing this product was part of the job's description. And you're claiming the employee has a right to continue in employment there? You certainly have an expansive view of employees' rights, comrade!
"If your [sic] raped you usually call the cops. Then taken to a ER which carries the pill that's need. [sic]"
Sadly, in one case, the ERNurse gave the victim a stern lecture, and the patient fainted. In another, the rapist was an associate of the victim's family, and the victim has not yet decided whether or not to prosecute. She just wanted to ensure she does not become pregnant. Now she gets a loud lecture from the pharmacist, in a public place. As if getting raped wasn't trouble enough.
OK, so let's recap: an employee can refuse to do his job, and still retain employment. A rape victim should receive a lecture on her "loose" morals. You all say none of this will have any effect upon the eventual outcome, but it's very important that we all allow it to happen. And all of this represents a very superior morality. Whatever.
Posted by: tensor on September 30, 2008 08:08 PMYes. Like the majority of pro-lifers, I'm a woman.
"Getting called a baby-killer when she needs a surgical abortion, because she has an objection to bearing her rapist's child."
That's the "serious problem" that will be "caused" by her not getting a drug?! Now the pharmacist is responsible for someone else's name calling?! According to American Association of the Colleges of Pharmacy AACP, "pharmacists are specialists in the science and clinical use of medications." The principal goal of pharmaceutical care is to achieve positive outcomes from the use of medication which improves patients' quality of life. These outcomes include: cure of a disease;
elimination or reduction of symptoms; arresting or slowing a disease process; prevention of disease; diagnosis of disease; and desired alterations in physiological processes, all with minimum risk to patients." Pregnancy is not a disease.
By the way, very few in the pro-life movement resort to name calling. You should show up tomorrow in front of any of the seven Planned Parenthood facilities in WA where 40 Days for Life vigils are being held, just for curiosity sake. Let me know if you hear any name calling.
And while an employee of a pharmacy should know what his/her employer will be expecting him/her to sell, what about a pharmacy owner who chooses not to stock the drug at all?
Posted by: Michelle on September 30, 2008 09:38 PMLike, say, limiting the consequences of rape? Would that not improve the victim's quality of life?
"Pregnancy is not a disease."
But it can become a life-threatening condition for the woman, especially an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy.
"By the way, very few in the pro-life movement resort to name calling. You should show up tomorrow in front of any of the seven Planned Parenthood facilities in WA where 40 Days for Life vigils are being held, just for curiosity sake. Let me know if you hear any name calling."
No thanks, I live near First Hill. Many years of experience have taught me exactly what one of those protests looks and sounds like.
If emergency contraception prevents a pregnancy, then abortion is not necessary, and the rape victim won't have to listen to what some TOTAL STRANGER has to say about her private medical choices. I'm still wondering why anyone who opposes abortion would limit access to contraception; it's like an arsonist complaining about the cost of the fire department.
"Yes. Like the majority of pro-lifers, I'm a woman."
I wasn't asking about percentages of a minority political position; I was asking if a woman was seriously questioning why a rape victim would need emergency contraception.
If a business does not wish to offer a product, that's fine with me. Like an all-kosher deli, it should make this point plain enough so members of the public do not waste everyone's time with futile requests for product. (In the case of a pharmacy, it should also communicate this policy choice to the local physicians, who would certainly want this information for their own work.)
Posted by: tensor on September 30, 2008 10:32 PMThat's the "serious problem" that will be "caused" by her not getting a drug?!
I'll never be pregnant, but if I had a choice between (a) taking a well-tested drug today, or (b) having an invasive medical procedure later, I know which I'd pick.
Posted by: tensor on September 30, 2008 10:36 PMLet's use some logic.
1. A fertilized egg is a human.
2. It is wrong to kill a human without cause.
3. MAP can prevent implantation, thus causing the death of a human.
4. Therfore, MAP is wrong.
The whole crux of your argument stems from your defense of the pro-choice view, that abortion is OK. And because of that, it begs the question.
You say it's wrong for a pharmacist to not give MAP to a rape victim. Implicit in your argument is your assertion that abortion is OK.
We say abortion is wrong, therefore it is wrong to prescribe MAP to anyone, as it results in the death of a human.
We're at loggerheads here. The pharmacist debate is moot until one of us wins the debate on abortion.
Guess my point is this: we're all wandering around yelling about pharmacists and ignoring the elephant in the room. Until you can refute the logic above, your claim has no standing. A majority of votes does not a moral claim make.
You can't disagree with (1). A fertilized egg is a human fertilized egg, and is therefore human.
That leaves (2) or (3) to pick at. Your choice, but understand that we all realize that your points about the pharmacist are moot until you address the logic above.
Posted by: Chris Luka on October 1, 2008 03:28 PM1. A fertilized egg is a human.
2. It is wrong to kill a human without cause."
Yes, and contraception prevents the fertilization of the egg. ("contra" = "against", "conception" = "fertilization") Therefore, when a woman seeks contraception, she's doing it to prevent fertilization. Hence, if she gets the contraception and it works, there's no need for any further worry on your part. So urge the pharmacists to do their jobs, and deliver the medicine her doctor ordered. Then, you'll have prevented abortion. Simple!
"The pharmacist debate is moot until one of us wins the debate on abortion."
Or, until you learn the difference between a contraceptive and an abortaficient. Could you please begin now?
"A fertilized egg is a human fertilized egg, and is therefore human."
There are, statistically speaking, tens of millions of cells inside your body right now. They differ from your other 10-20 trillion cells by their infection with a retrovirus. That is, each of the infected cells is a human cell with unique DNA, your DNA + viral DNA. Do you know what happens when your immune system finds one of these cells? (Hint: "Showing deep respect for individual human life" would not describe it.)
Posted by: tensor on October 1, 2008 06:18 PMThe topic here is EMERGENCY Contraception, which is not the same as other contraceptions. Emergency Contraception is taken AFTER the fact. If she is pregnant, it prevents implantation of her already fertilized egg, which as Chris Luka points out, is a human being. The human being, then dies.
Are you seriously putting any of the millions of cells inside the human body on the same level as a fertilized egg? We all began as a fertilized egg, not a skin cell or hair cell or blood cell.
Posted by: Michelle on October 1, 2008 10:03 PMTo clarify, after intercourse. Not necessarily after conception. There is ~72 hour difference between insemination and conception. Hence, the need for the rape victim to get her pills quickly. Having a pharmacist refuse to dispense this prescribed medication in a timely manner can actually increase the victim's chances of having an abortion, as I pointed out a few dozen comments ago.
"If she is pregnant, it prevents implantation of her already fertilized egg..."
There is actually scant evidence for this, and to the extent it might happen, it just emphasizes the need for the victim to get the medicine without interference, right?