Kidding via the title aside, today's Joni Balter column is a fair representation of the center-left Establishment's befuddlement with the extremely close nature of our not-so-low-profile race for Governor. Within that construct, there is not much with which to argue..
A couple points, however:
1) Balter says:
Gregoire is running one effective ad about Plan B, the morning-after contraceptive. Rossi believes pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to provide these contraceptives. The ads seem aimed at suppressing the considerable pro-Rossi vote in Eastern Washington and tapping suburban voters who think such decisions are not the government's business.
Maybe the ad moves some votes in the suburbs, though one would think that in the hierarchy of issues, the economy, the looming state budget deficit, transportation, and education trump mandating individual pharmacists to dispense a specific prescription medication.
But, the notion that such an ad would suppress Rossi's support in Eastern Washington is odd - and that's being polite. It's more proof that the Seattle establishment understands little of that which cannot be seen from the top of the Space Needle.
2) Balter's point #4 (of 10) waxes hopeful about the much-discussed impact of the youth vote. Some context:
Every Presidential year we hear that the 18-24 age group is actually going to turn out in enthusiastic masses, thus changing the electoral landscape as we know it. This year it's because all those avant garde cell phone-only youngsters not captured in modern polling. Come, the revolution we are told.
Well, maybe. I'm a 33 year old, married father of two. I don't have a landline. More importantly, while the Obama campaign was successful organizing the doe-eyed faithful during the primary season (especially for usually low-turnout caucuses where small improvements in mobilization can have big payoffs), it would remain prudent to believe the hype of a youth vote for the ages when it actually happens given the errant predictions of election cycles gone by.
To be fair to Balter, it is an unpredictable variable. Here's another, however. Voter turnout in Washington state in 2004 was 82.2%, including just shy of 83% in King County. Meanwhile, nine of the twelve counties coming in at under 80% turnout were in Eastern Washington.
What happens if voters on that side of the state, long accustomed to having their votes in statewide contests swamped by the Puget Sound region, turn out in greater numbers given obvious enthusiasm for the Governor's race and the awareness that every vote does indeed count?
It's clearly a possibility worth considering.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 05, 2008 01:29 PM | Email ThisMr. Rossi has repeatedly refused to talk about his core beliefs, and you know why. It's not just "a specific prescription medication" to a rape victim; it's her peace of mind, it's her putting part of that awful experience behind her. Mr. Rossi's desire to have a third party intervene between a woman and her doctor is a nice encapsulation of the entire anti-choice position, a position which is a chronic political loser in this state.
Mr. Rossi has chosen to force his unpopular views upon innocent persons, who have repeatedly rejected those views at the ballot box. Contrary to your failed attempt at dismissal, personal liberty will always be a big matter to American voters, especially here in Washington state. You've chosen the wrong side of that issue, and now you get to enjoy the result.
Posted by: tensor on October 5, 2008 01:38 PMIf you could point to some sort of verifiable evidence that an individual pharmacist having the right to refuse to dispense Plan B has actually infringed on real access to that product, please let me know. I'd be interested to see it.
Until then, your rant has little meaning.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 5, 2008 01:51 PMWait. I thought he was in favor of protecting the baby?
Posted by: Al on October 5, 2008 01:52 PMThis shows amazingly flawed logic. So Rossi wants pharmacists to be able be free to refuse to sell Plan B if they feel it goes against their moral or religious beliefs without government interference. There is no government law preventing the purchaser from going to another pharmacy and from ultimately buying Plan B.
Gregoire wants to force pharmacists to sell it... against their will if necessary... and enforce it with the power of the state.
If the decision isn't the governments business, then why would you want the government to force people to sell things the have a moral or religious belief against, especially if there is nothing preventing the other party from legally buying it somewhere else.
Absolutely absurd logic.
Posted by: Mike H on October 5, 2008 02:17 PM1. woman goes to doctor
2. doctor prescribes plan b
3. woman goes to pharmacist and pharmacist refuses to dispense the medicine
4. woman calls doctor to tell them she can't get it at a particular pharmacist
5. doctor calls the prescription in at another pharmacist
6. woman goes across the street to the other pharmacist and gets her plan b pills
That is free market medicine. Using the government to force a person to do something against their conscience is the very definition of oppression.
The doctors would quickly learn who those pharmacists are and would quickly shift which pharmacies they send their plan b prescriptions to.
Posted by: blindman on October 5, 2008 02:44 PMSeems to me like they got too much criticism, and figured this was the best way not to have to see it anymore.
Posted by: janet s on October 5, 2008 02:51 PMProper to who? Are you suggesting that the legislature and the majority who voted them in have the right to dictate what is "proper" and what is not "proper"?
If you are, that is an amazingly arrogant and short-sighted opinion.
Posted by: iconoclast on October 5, 2008 02:54 PMWhy? You're making the same case here... that a medical professional can withhold treatment on the basis of their personal beliefs. Is that "fair"? Is that "reasonable"? Try those words out if "proper" seems too hard for you to grasp.
Posted by: demo kid on October 5, 2008 02:57 PMIf a pharmacist is working for a larger business who does stock it--and by extension expects their pharmacists to fill it--then again problem solved (fill it or you and your objections are fired). If I owned a pharmacy and had no problem with Plan B, that is how I would handle it. Assuming, of course, that hiring more pill counters isn't too hard.
Having trouble here understanding the issue, now that I think more about it.
Posted by: iconoclast on October 5, 2008 03:01 PMSo NO we don't have to live in a centrally planned dictatorship.
Posted by: Andy on October 5, 2008 03:04 PMBut comparing a horribly mangled kid who was in a bad car accident and will soon die if not treated to a woman looking for Plan B is a bit of stretch. One is a bona fide medical emergency that could result in immediate death if not treated quickly. The other, not. And even in a sparsely populated area, the next closest pharmacy is still only what? Another twenty miles away? I grew up in a rural area... 20 miles isn't a big deal if you live out there. If it is a big deal... well... you need to move closer to town.
Posted by: Mike H on October 5, 2008 03:09 PMI cannot see how you are confused about this. Are you really comparing the ability of the majority to dictate private actions with the private actions themselves?
Or maybe you misunderstood me. I didn't suggest that the doctor refusing to perform some procedure would have the authority to ban other doctors performing that procedure. His potential action controlled only himself.
Posted by: iconoclast on October 5, 2008 03:13 PMAny of you on the left carping about someone not getting a prescription in some straw man situation, produce some proof that this has ever happened here, or your words are as empty as our inept governor's.
Posted by: Palouse on October 5, 2008 03:15 PMsheesh. His potential action would control his own action.
@15: You're right that it is a non-issue, and I'm a little pissed that Gregoire is seeing fit to run on this. Heck, you're even right that setting up unreasonable hypothetical situations is pointless from a practical standpoint.
But again, this is imposing the morality of a professional on a choice that they should have NO part in. Again, it is the ultimate in arrogance to have a licensed practitioner in a field take that kind of moral judgment away from the patient in this situation.
How about this? If you went into the local drugstore for antidepressants, should your local Scientologist pharmacist be able to refuse your prescription on the basis of his beliefs?
Posted by: demo kid on October 5, 2008 04:08 PMFirst, we have Loser:
"Mr. Rossi has chosen to force his unpopular views upon innocent persons"
Just like Queen Chrissy the Tribal Ho and Loser would force THEIR "unpopular view" on those protecting their Constitutional, private property rights?
See, in the world of the leftist fringe nutter, it's perfectly OK to trample someone ELSE'S rights... as long as their OWN "rights" are protected... even when the "right" in question doesn't exist.
Then dumbo spews:
"that a medical professional can withhold treatment on the basis of their personal beliefs."
Happens every day, all day. No one, for example, may force any doctor to perform an abortion if they don't want to. So, yeah, I agree that it happens... but anyone with a functioning brain cell would also know that it's irrelevant to this matter.
The very idea of forcing ALL pharmacies to stock ALL medications is moronic. Whack jobs pull out the completely bogus red herring about "sparsely populated rural areas" as if they were 10,000 miles away, and the ONLY way to get this, or any other drug, is from that one, rural, pharmacy in Royal City or Washtucna, since there aren't any others to go to in the same hemisphere.
These same short-bussers would do what, if the businesses in question refuse to sell this pill regardless?
Why, they'd moronically put them out of business.
Man, THAT would make this pill available, wouldn't it?
Note: neither of the idiots have ever addressed the simple and obvious solution of having the prescribing doctor dispense the drug in question. That would be too complicated for the cursedly simple.
God, but to support the idea of forcing any private entity to sell anything just goes to show how stupid and political people really can become.
Posted by: Hinton on October 5, 2008 04:16 PMStrange, that.
Posted by: Hinton on October 5, 2008 04:20 PM"The point is that medical care should be controlled by the person being cared for, and not by the fellow pushing pills behind the counter. Simply put, my medical care should not be compromised by some idiot that isn't even my own doctor."
A pharmacy refusing to dispense this drug... or not carrying this drug... like maybe they don't carry crutches, or contact lens solution or Radial TA tires has no impact on "medical treatment."
Again, the leftists seem incapable of getting that as in the case of the pharmacy lacking crutches, or contact lens solution, you just go somewhere else and get it.
Your right to any product does not and never will supersede my right not to carry it. And, of course, NONE of you idiots banging this particular drum have EVER presented ANYTHING to show where it does.
Until then, you really have no idea WTF you're talking about, and you seem more idiotic with each and every nonsensical, irrelevant post.
Of course, you do that anyway, dumbo, but in this instance, you go overboard.
But again, this is imposing the morality of a fringe leftist whackjob on a choice that they should have NO part in.
And, in response to your again, completely irrelevant question... the answer is "YES." As it would be for chemo therapy, penile enhancement medication, psoriasis OR ANY OTHER MEDICATION THEY, FOR WHATEVER THE REASON, DO NOT WANT TO CARRY!
Thanks for asking. Next?
Posted by: Hinton on October 5, 2008 04:32 PMThis THREAD is about VOTERS: young voters who have more enthusiasm talking about voting than they do actually voting and Eastern WA voters who are sick of being walked over by the voter fraud in King County.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 5, 2008 04:44 PM@20: Way to not address my point! You lose that one, pal.
@22: More rantings from a intellectually-challenged idiot. Unfortunately, last time I checked I don't quite think that you need to get crutches or saline solution from a licensed professional. Care to refute that point?
@24: Another completely idiotic comment. What is the relevance here to the issues being discussed? (Heck, where is the connection to reality?) Can conservatives argue without tightly clutching their tinfoil hats?
Posted by: demo kid on October 5, 2008 05:05 PMOr at least, the results are all released at the same moment by the SecState. The counties turn the numbers into that office and everything is released together.
Ergo, no searching for more votes. Like an anonymous bidding program....
Posted by: Chris on October 5, 2008 05:07 PMamazing that you really don't get it. Are you brainwashed, retarded, or disabled by a blow to the head?
Try it like this, moron:
there can be no law stating that a pharmacy must carry every possible drug available.
and
pharmacies may use whatever reasoning they wish to decide what to carry
Simple enough for you? probably not...which makes you a typical Obama voter and Democrat. Pity you keep polluting Gaia with your carbon output....
Posted by: iconoclast on October 5, 2008 06:46 PMheh. Like that is going to happen. How can the vote totals be altered (again) if they did that?
btw, I do believe that Acorn is very active in our state, which means many fraudulent ballots. Expect any to be rejected in King County??
Posted by: iconoclast on October 5, 2008 06:52 PMNot looking good for Gregoire.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 5, 2008 07:11 PMDemo kid, .he's not controlling you're medical care. There is nothing preventing you from going somewhere else. There is nothing that states you are entitled to get whatever form of medical care you want to from whom ever you want.
You piss and whine about other "idiots" "controlling" your medical care when there is nothing preventing you from getting it elsewhere, but you want to force people to give it to you against their will by force of the state.
Posted by: Mike H on October 5, 2008 07:55 PMYes. Because to have the government forcing people to act against their conscience is an oppressive abuse of power. We're supposed to be a free society where the market makes these decisions.
This is another case where if the government stayed out of it, the problem would resolve itself.
Posted by: blindman on October 5, 2008 08:17 PMEvery single day doctors refuse to perform abortions, refuse to perform in vitro fertilization, refuse to inject Botox, refuse to lipo, lift, nip and tuck.
Shall the government FORCE them to because a person wants them too?
Look, dumbo... I recognize you have absolutely nothing to support your nonsensical positions. But Bill Clinton on a pogo stick, is that drivel the best you can do?
Of course it is. For the feeble-minded leftist, the "rights" of OTHERS have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY SITUATION. YOUR "rights" are by FAR more superior than anyone else's. SO, you refuse to address the issues, instead, piling on a bunch of irrelevant bullshit that makes you FEEL better, but has NO application to the issue at hand.
For example, I provide just ONE of the many realistic solutions to this problem, and you're too stupidly blinded by your leftist brainwashing to address it.
Not that it's unusual, dumbo. Your really don't do well when your positions are destroyed here. And you would STILL rather violate the rights of business owners than you would SOLVE THE FRICKING PROBLEM.
My position has absolutely NOTHING to do with this being a "pro-life" or "pro-choice" issue. If, for example, The Tribal Ho edicted that stores/pharmacies had to carry, say, whatever type of moron pills you're abusing to write your garbage, I'd be taking the SAME position. If she came out and required, for another example, that all stores had to sell, say, ammunition.... or diapers... or Volkswagens... I'd have the SAME position.
See, for me, it doesn't MATTER that it's a pill. What MATTERS is this absolutely asinine idea that a government can FORCE ANYONE TO SELL ANYTHING TO ANYONE... a position that you have yet TO SUPPORT WITH ANY COGENT ARGUMENT... OR ANYTHING else, FOR THAT MATTER, save that YOU want it that way.
Guess what? What YOU "WANT" doesn't mean squit.
It has to do with our Constitutional RIGHTS.... not our Constitutional SUGGESTIONS.
And that's just one of the many things that, well, proves that you're a leftist, biased moron.
Posted by: Hinton on October 5, 2008 09:38 PMIf you get a licensed pharmacist that is a Scientologist, do they have the right to refuse to fill a prescription for anti-depressants? (Or, in your case, anti-psychotics?)
The idea of whether it is "in stock" or not is a red herring. This is not a rare drug, nor is it an over-the-counter one. This is a case where licensed pharmacists are blatantly disobeying a prescription from a doctor because they're sticking their damn fool heads in where they don't belong. It's unprofessional, and just like the state can regulate grossly negligent behavior amongst licensed professionals, it is within the interest of the state to get involved here.
If this were, say, bandages or Q-tips, then hey... you'll get no disagreement from me. If a pharmacy doesn't want to stock condoms or antacid, then by all means.
Posted by: demo kid on October 5, 2008 10:26 PMIn THAT post, I wrote, but since your lack any reading comprehension, you were obviously unable to READ, the following:
"And, in response to your again, completely irrelevant question... the answer is "YES." As it would be for chemo therapy, penile enhancement medication, psoriasis OR ANY OTHER MEDICATION THEY, FOR WHATEVER THE REASON, DO NOT WANT TO CARRY!"
And YOU have failed to address MY position, that the doctor PRESCRIBING this drug can ALSO DISPENSE it. Further, you IGNORED the FACT that NO ONE can force ANY doctor to perform an abortion is they are opposed to it... just like NO ONE can force ANY pharmacy to dispense or carry ANY product THEY DO NOT WANT TO CARRY.
It's a PRODUCT, dumbo. No DIFFERENT OR BETTER THEN ANY OTHER. A PRODUCT. The issue of rarity DOES NOT MATTER.
NO business exercising it's PROPERTY RIGHTS engages in what YOU (and ONLY you) call "unprofessional conduct." As I pointed out, you CANNOT FORCE A DOCTOR TO PERFORM AN ABORTION. The issue of "professional conduct," like all the REST of your positions on this matter are ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
At the end of the day, the state CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO SELL ANYTHING. You can try to dress it up any way you like... but there it is.
And at every LEGAL level, the legal authority has agreed with ME, because it's about the Constitution. NOT what you and those LIKE you WANT, but about the Constitution.
A pharmacy is a business like any other. And NO government has the RIGHT to force that business to carry ANYTHING. To make that a requirement starts a slippery slope, where government could force all gas stations to carry spark plugs... because, after all, no one opposed to driving a car can get in between a car owner and his mechanic, right?
Sheesh. Shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by: Hinton on October 5, 2008 11:54 PMYour use of property rights does not dodge the fact that the State has a legal right to regulate professional conduct as part of commerce. If someone sets themselves up as a pharmacist in a community, they should be able to fill prescriptions from doctors as a requirement of their profession, or transfer that prescription directly to someone who will. Assuming that every pharmacy should stock every single drug is nonsense, but consistently refusing to fill doctors' prescriptions because of your own beliefs is an abuse of professional power.
Your comment about gas stations and spark plugs is amusing... but wrong. It is more akin to requiring that medical professionals provide a basic standard of care as a requirement of their license to practice. I mean, should you really be forced as a doctor to buy a blood pressure cuff or stethoscope? Isn't that a contravention of property rights?
And of course, this is a case where conservatives conveniently forget that professional licensing is a State matter, and attempt to push through legislation about this at a federal level...
Posted by: demo kid on October 6, 2008 10:00 AMWhat if the pharmacist just chooses not to stock the drug?
I mean, there are a ton of other ways to do contraception, so pharmacists in rural areas might not ever see enough demand to keep the drug in stock?
In cities, where there is lots of competition and every square inch of business space is expensive, the pharmacist might decide they would rather make room for some other drug with higher margin and demand.
So if the pharmacist simply says "Sorry, don't stock that. Not enough demand." is that okay with you? Or do you want to force the pharmacies to carry it?
Posted by: Johnny on October 6, 2008 10:20 AMDo you know how many kinds drugs there are out there ... multiplied by the various dosages available? (Hint: it's more than the kinds of beer, cereal and argula available at Whole Foods).
No one is charged with carrying every product to meet every demand.
Your false analogy btween blood pressure and KillBaby Pills is laughable. Figure out why.
And now I have a challenge for you.
WHAT if, instead of KillBaby Pills (which liberals love) I, as a business owner, refused to carry an equally legal and far more state profitable cigarettes (which liberals hate)?
You cannot defend forcing the sale of something you like without defending the sale of something you HATE.
MY pharmacist is one of those that sued and won in court. MY pharmacist has often not had what was written on a script available. But each and every time, MY pharmacist either called and got it elsewhere or called and verified where I could get it ... next door, down the strip mall, across the street.
And, MY pharmacist will have our business till the day I die, not because he is better or more efficient than the next guy (he's not, they are the same) BUT because he lives his life as I do: living and modeling my beliefs and not crossing a line for PROFIT or expediency.
You liberal sheep can't understand that. To you, beliefs are situational and malleable. It is the EXACT reason you hate people of faith, the EXACT reason you hate those sure of themselves, the EXACT reason you hate those of us that live life in black and white and the EXACT reason you fall for a for charalatans like Obamaliar whose actions belie his flowery rhetoric, who so easily charms simpletons and moral deviants.... like YOU.
And you're blatantly using the power of government to push your left-wing agenda on people that don't believe what you're selling.
Many a war has been started over your tactics.
Posted by: jimg on October 6, 2008 03:38 PMI don't give a crap about your moral code, and your pathetic attempt at tying in some kind of persecution complex is not just dishonest, it's dishonorable. (I've learned to expect no less.) And I'm sick to death of hypocrites like you crowing loudly about how they're "sure of themselves", when they are quite willing to bend to situational ethics when it suits them.
The simple fact is this. For pharmacists not to stock a drug specifically to get in the way of a decision that a patient makes and a doctor approves is unprofessional and unethical. The state (and NOT the federal government!) has the right to sanction these licensed professional as they see fit, just like they could sanction someone that decides not to stock blood pressure medication specifically to keep certain people from getting it.
The argument about cigarettes is a red herring, because we're not talking about a free product. Of course, if you would want to carry it in a more relevant direction... should a store cashier have the right not to sell cigarettes to an elderly person? Someone who has kids with them? Maybe someone wheeling an oxygen tank around?
@42: And you're blatantly using the power of government to push your left-wing agenda on people that don't believe what you're selling.
Wow... so letting patients make moral choices themselves is a "left-wing agenda"? How priceless! I forgot that the left is more interested in these elements of personal liberty. Silly me. And of course, I forgot that right-wingers are all for a totalitarian state when it comes to telling other people how to make moral choices like this.
Posted by: demo kid on October 6, 2008 04:20 PM"This is not a rare drug, nor is it an over-the-counter one."
So they should have no problem going across the street to get it.
Why oppress the pharmacist when the scrip can be easily filled by another pharmacist?
Oh wait. I know. You liberals are in love with oppression and the comrades that employ those tactics.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 6, 2008 04:37 PM"Why oppress the pharmacist [by MAKING HIM DO THE JOB FOR WHICH HE WAS HIRED]?"
Wow, so "oppression" now consists of doing the work for which one was hired, and is paid. And you believe you can use "free-market" ideology to support this. Obviously, YOU have no problem getting your hands on all kinds of medication!
"If you could point to some sort of verifiable evidence that an individual pharmacist having the right to refuse to dispense Plan B has actually infringed on real access to that product, please let me know. I'd be interested to see it."
So, your policy actually has to hurt someone before you'll admit that it is wrong? (Just how far will you go to avoid taking responsibility for your beliefs?) Do you let your children play with matches? I mean, they've never ever actually burnt anyone yet, right?
I'd rather see your justification for allowing someone to interfere with the private choice a patient made in consultation with her doctor, because that's what you and Mr. Rossi clearly want.
Posted by: tensor on October 6, 2008 07:54 PM"Why oppress the pharmacist [by MAKING HIM DO THE JOB FOR WHICH HE WAS HIRED]?"
Wow, so "oppression" now consists of doing the work for which one was hired, and is paid. And you believe you can use "free-market" ideology to support this. Obviously, YOU have no problem getting your hands on all kinds of medication!
"If you could point to some sort of verifiable evidence that an individual pharmacist having the right to refuse to dispense Plan B has actually infringed on real access to that product, please let me know. I'd be interested to see it."
So, your policy actually has to hurt someone before you'll admit that it is wrong? (Just how far will you go to avoid taking responsibility for your beliefs?) Do you let your children play with matches? I mean, they've never ever actually burnt anyone yet, right?
I'd rather see your justification for allowing someone to interfere with the private choice a patient made in consultation with her doctor, because that's what you and Mr. Rossi clearly want.
Posted by: tensor on October 6, 2008 07:54 PMYou have been refuted six way from Sunday.
No one NEEDS KillBaby pills IMMEDIATELY.
If the doc can PRESCRIBE them, the doc can PROVIDE them.
If Pharm A doesn't have Killbaby Pills, Pharm B,C,D and E do.
If Pharmacist A won't despense them, Pharmacist B,C,D and E WILL.
If you are raped, you'll get them in ER.
If your daughter is a promiscous whore, get them pre-emptively.... or get her on birth control... better yet, tie her tubes and prevent her from breeding.
You can NOT force a doctor to perform an abortion. You can NOT force a doctor to give you a vasectemy or tubal ligation or lift your sagging butt or straighten your nose, or correct your uni-brow or help your homosexual partner with in vitro fertilization. PERIOD.
Get the hell over it and move on.
A court has decided and your whining or the chrissy queens moaning will NOT change that fact.
@47: No one NEEDS KillBaby pills IMMEDIATELY.
Wow. I seriously can't believe that someone as stupid as you can be alive. Plan B needs to be used within 72 hours, so time is actually a concern. So yes, in this case it is an issue.
Similarly, to call it a "KillBaby" pill is just short of singing "every sperm is sacred" in terms of its complete lunacy.
Posted by: demo kid on October 6, 2008 10:15 PMI am confident that even YOU could find a KillBaby Pill or 2 in 3 DAYS.
You kiddies need to get the hell over this. It's a non-issue. You lost.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 6, 2008 10:27 PMAwww, did I hurt your tender feelings, bruise your delicate sensibilites?
Tough.
Be a man and have the courage to NAME what it is you champion by calling it exactly what it is.
And when you finally admit to yourself it is indeed a KillBaaby Pill, you might want to look up the growing number of DEAD KillerMommies worldwide.
Posted by: Ragnar Dannesjkold on October 6, 2008 11:26 PMMad rantings from a coward, that's pretty much what it is.
Posted by: demo kid on October 7, 2008 12:03 AMLet's ask ourselves... what is the purpose of the pills?
To prevent a pregnancy from proceeding.
What does a human pregnancy produce?
A human BABY.
Be a man and have the courage to NAME what it is you champion by calling it exactly what it is.
And you forgot your homework: look up the growing number of DEAD KillerMommies from KillBaby Pills worldwide.
Part of "being a man" is not being a hysterical twit like yourself.
Posted by: demo kid on October 7, 2008 09:21 AM---Arguing with crazy people will make you insane.
---Nonsense drives out reason...to a poster dealt a losing hand, a hijacked thread is an argument not fought and, therefore, not lost.
---Context is everything.
---(I believe)The grocer who won the legal battle against Queen Christine's regulatory brownshirts tried to avoid the issue by not stocking the pill.
The Queen's own State Medical Board voted against forcing individual stores from carrying the MA pill, and forcing individual pharmacists to dispense them.
The Queen then threatened that she would fire the lot.
They changed the vote. The grocer won in court.
This entire episode is a shameful example of raw exercise of government power.
Posted by: Das Baron Von Zippee on October 7, 2008 09:43 AMNo... this exercise is a shameful example of how other people can impose their ethical beliefs where they don't belong.
Posted by: demo kid on October 7, 2008 10:47 AM
HA! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
That is just too precious coming from an anti-ANYTHING Christian in public ACLU LIBERAL.
That is just too precious coming from a POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, HATE CRIMES FOR THOUGHT, liberal.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2008 02:02 PM