To become a Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), pharmacists have to have at least 6 years of post-secondary study and pass a state board of pharmacy’s licensure examination. That is not the equivalent of being a store clerk; a clerk could work at a different store or flip burgers. Saying that a pharmacist should just walk away from his career (a substantial investment of time and money) is presumptuous, IMO. Perhaps you’ve never the considered the following ideas.

Then I would hope that they realize that there are people in this world that don’t happen to share their same religious beliefs or moral attitudes. Being so well educated that you become useless to society isn’t smart.

By the way, there are many automotive mechanics that spend years in school as well. Do you ever here a mechanic refusing to work on a Subaru?

According to a Reuters' survey (available on Medscape), "69% of pharmacists said they should have the authority to refuse filling prescriptions for emergency contraception."

Please!, That’s like saying IT support personnel should have the authority to refuse to work on a Novel LAN. Omnipotence doesn’t give one the authority to do anything other than act omnipotent.

• A pharmacist’s professional judgment is based upon his training and his duty of care to those to whom he dispenses medicines.

Common sense would dictate that the “Doctor” that wrote the prescription would have a more detailed understanding of the patients needs. After all, the pharmacist is just looking at a piece of paper with no knowledge of someone’s medical history. What level of education is required to play God?

• The distinction between actively participating in an abortion and passively dispensing contraceptives and/or abortifacients is meaningless because both forms link the provider to the final outcome in the chain of causation (death of a fetus).

And if the Doctor has prescribed this medication because the mothers life is at risk do to complications, illness or some “unknown” condition that the pharmacist is totally unaware of he/she should still have a right to refuse medical treatment?

• The right to refuse to participate in acts that conflict with personal, ethical, moral, or religious convictions is accepted as an essential element of a democratic society. The reproductive-rights movement was built on the ideal of personal choice; denying choice for pharmacists in matters of reproductive rights and abortion seems ironic.

Does this affect your position that pharmacists (and other health care providers?) are "morally bound to find other employment"?

YES for the simple fact that they should have known that their moral high-ground argument would be in direct conflict with their chosen profession. They are unable to accomplish the work that they trained for and are paid to perform. People are fired everyday for the same reason. Why should someone with letters after their name be an exception?

Why would you believe that someone who willingly joined the Armed Forces should then be exempted from performing their duties based on moral or religious grounds is acceptable? That’s like saying its ok for someone to marry but not choose to fully honor their commitment.

The right of conscientious objection is based on the following:

"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."

God I love it when people only show you “part” of the truth. Would it have been that difficult to quote the entire thing?

“In the United States, there are three criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief, as the term has been construed by the Supreme Court, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. Third, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375.

For you information the “law” in the United States as it pertains to “conscientious objection” only pertains directly to military service. No other profession is mentioned.

The Hippocratic Oath Excerpt (the 4th century B.C.)

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing.

Try the classical version:

“I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

How do you reconcile the fact that someone can swear an oath to false gods and still object to something on “religious grounds”? God loves hypocrites too.

In Georgia pharmacists' right to refuse to fill a prescription is protected by law, and pharmacists can refuse to dispense emergency contraception drugs.

Again you only state “part” of the law.

Now let’s add the part you left out.

TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 12. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH AND MORALS
ARTICLE 5. ABORTION

O.C.G.A. § 16-12-142 (2007)

§ 16-12-142. Objections by medical facilities, physicians, or pharmacists to providing abortion-related services

“(b) Any pharmacist who states in writing an objection to any abortion or all abortions on moral or religious grounds shall not be required to fill a prescription for a drug which purpose is to terminate a pregnancy; and the refusal of the person to fill such prescription shall not form the basis of any claim for damages on account of such refusal or for any disciplinary or recriminatory action against the person; provided, however, that the pharmacist shall make all reasonable efforts to locate another pharmacist who is willing to fill such prescription or shall immediately return the prescription to the prescription holder.”

Why do you find it so difficult to speak the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth?

"useless to society" -- Are you always so disdainful of professionals?

"Automotive mechanics" are analogous to pharmacists?

So, your mechanic studied mathematics, chemistry, biology, and physics, as well as courses in the humanities and social sciences?

Pharmacists must posses "scientific aptitude, good communication skills, and a desire to help others. They also must be conscientious and pay close attention to detail, because the decisions they make affect human lives."

Now, what were you saying about the truth?

"They should have known that their moral high-ground [you got that part right] argument would be in direct conflict with their chosen profession." -- This is only a very recent controversy. So, what about the majority of pharmacists who were practicing before?

"Would it have been that difficult to quote the entire thing?" -- I never thought I'd hear those words!

You remind me of someone who'd complain if you were hung with a new rope.

Does materiality explain it?

What part of "excerpt" do you not understand? But thanks for all of the details.

"Why do you find it so difficult to speak the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth?" -- You forgot the "so help me God" part. "Would it have been that difficult to quote the entire thing?"

And I thought that I was long-winded!

"useless to society" -- Are you always so disdainful of professionals?

Someone that attempts to impose their morals on someone else is considered a professional, what? Please remember, people often, or used to, refer to lawyers as professionals.

What makes a pharmacist so special that they are ordained as professionals?

We have “professional” politicians, “professional” athletes, “professional” bank robbers. Heck Denise, there are “professional wrestlers. Am I supposed to be impressed? Is that the same esteem you have for someone who dispenses medications as per written instructions? Just because you choose to elevate them to a “professional” status does nothing for me or the woman who’s just had her prescription denied because of some snob and his/her morals.

"Automotive mechanics" are analogous to pharmacists?

Now, what were you saying about the truth?

No, "automotive mechanics" are not analogous to pharmacists. A good automotive mechanic is hard to find. I can locate a pharmacist on just about any street corner.

F.Y.I. An “automotive” mechanic has to study quite a few things. Try thermal and hydro dynamics, physics, aerodynamics and chemistry to name just a few. They must also poses an understanding of custom built one of a kind mechanisms that have several hundred moving and interdependent parts. And throw in computer programming too.

Oh yes, by the way there are several that work on $100,000 street Honda’s but they only make between $200 and $500 an hour.

It’s not uncommon for a well trained and experienced automotive mechanic that specializes on a certain type of car working a private shop can easily earn $75 and $200 per hour. What do you think a pharmacist makes? The median salary for a pharmacist is in the $80,000 to $85,000.

Again, going to school for 6 years and racking up huge college loans doesn’t justify imposing your moral beliefs on someone.

"They should have known that their moral high-ground [you got that part right] argument would be in direct conflict with their chosen profession." -- This is only a very recent controversy. So, what about the majority of pharmacists who were practicing before?

The birth control pill was introduced in the early 1960s. Pharmacists have been around for how long? There were no pharmacists imposing their morals on others before. Before the issue of birth control, a pharmacist could be jailed and/or fired for not filling a prescription.

"Would it have been that difficult to quote the entire thing?" -- I never thought I'd hear those words!

What part of "excerpt" do you not understand? But thanks for all of the details.

I understand that you take comfort in “excerpting” only that part(s) you find convenient, leaving the more distasteful parts for someone else to ferret out. Isn’t the Internet wonderful?

"Why do you find it so difficult to speak the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth?" -- You forgot the "so help me God" part. "Would it have been that difficult to quote the entire thing?"

Actually that is the entire thing. Just like the pledge, the God part it is a fairly recent addition. More to the point the “God-oath”, as it’s called, is not used everywhere in this country. Most if not all courts in this country will allow a person to affirm rather than swear an oath to God. Go figure.

Tell me Denise, if an atheist is a witness in a court case, do they have to pledge the "truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god," as well as place their right hand on a bible?

Please try and address the part of my post earlier where I questioned why a pharmacist would presume to have a greater knowledge about a particular patient then their Doctor. I’m curious about how you plan on arguing about that.

The "smiley" icons were to lighten the tone of my response to you and my effort to remain on friendly terms.

I used the term profession in the historical, classical sense (vs. a trade or other employment): A profession is an occupation, vocation, or career where specialized knowledge of a subject, field, or science is applied and usually refers to occupations that involve prolonged academic training and a formal qualification and are usually regulated by professional bodies that may set examinations of competence, act as an licensing authority for practitioners, and enforce adherence to an ethical code of practice.

Professions include, for example: priests, ministers, doctors/surgeons, pharmacists, nurses, lawyers, judges, police officers, professors, dentists, accountants, teachers, etc.

__________________________

I never stated one way or the other what a mechanic studies, or my opinion of that career (which can sometimes be as “honest” as the legal one, IMO). I “esteem” people who do a good job and are honest, whether it’s putting cans on a shelf or working on my car, and I don’t call any of them “useless to society.” And I do know an honest mechanic (although I haven’t had much need for his mechanical services), but car’s insides aren’t my specialty or interest. My dad (who’s also a “professional”) always fixed our cars, and I’d hand him a wrench, if I could figure out which one he wanted before he could get it himself.

I’m happy that mechanics earn that kind of money, but that doesn’t make them any more or less valuable as a person in my eyes. A relative of mine never made much as a mechanic (cars and other machines), but he lived in a small Southern town (think Mayberry) and was quite happy. He survived the bombing of Pearl Harbor and WWII.

__________________________

“Pharmacists' Rights at Front of New Debate”

(although written before the controversial Plan B morning-after pill was approved)

“The question of health care workers refusing to provide certain services first emerged among doctors, nurses and other health care workers over abortions. The trend began to spread to pharmacists with the approval of the morning-after pill and physician-assisted suicide in Oregon.”

This article might explain the context of my statements and abortifacients rather than other pharmaceuticals being foremost in my mind.

You can read the article (to “ferret out” the “more distasteful parts”) if you want to consider out the broader issues of this debate. I don’t see the NEJM or others framing this debate as “a greater knowledge about a particular patient then their Doctor.” I referenced this article as a credible source and having well stated points. You can take up the debate with them about the analogous application of the legal precedent of a conscientious objector. I see the analogy.

I, for one, am glad that many legislators (including Illinois recently) have recognized the rights of pharmacists (“their moral high-ground argument”) and have tried to come to a respectful and rational, rather than emotional, way of dealing with this controversy.

__________________________

Bad: “Then I would hope that they realize that there are people in this world that don’t happen to share their same religious beliefs or moral attitudes.” – I have no doubt that they well realize that.

__________________________

Bad: “Do you ever here [hear] a mechanic refusing to work on a Subaru?” – I have heard of greater numbers of doctors deciding not to perform abortions, though.

__________________________

Bad: “What level of education is required to play God?” – Aren’t the ones deciding who lives and who dies the ones “playing God”?

__________________________

Abortifacients are not prescribed “because the mothers life is at risk.” There might be a very, very few, rare instances, but that is beyond the scope of my original context.
__________________________

I’m not the one who has chosen “to elevate them [pharmacists] to a ‘professional’ status.” If you want to lobby legislators in an effort to revoke the professional status and requirements of pharmacists, then The Federalist No. 10 (1787) might apply.

“Under classic constitutional theory, majoritarian rule should govern, and at the expense of minority rights. Madison argued that the republican remedy embodied in the Constitution allowed the various factions sufficient room to express their views and to attempt to influence the government. Instead of the majority putting down minorities, the different interests would negotiate their differences, thus arriving at a solution in which the majority would rule but with due care and regard given to minorities. The very number of factions would preclude any one from exercising tyrannical control over the rest. And the medium in which this give and take would occur would be politics, the art of governing.”

__________________________

As far as the oath invoking God being “fairly recent,” “A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it.” [Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)]

It is proper to distinguish two things in oaths:

1. The invocation by which the God of truth, who knows all things, is taken to witness.

2. The imprecation by which he is asked as a just and all-powerful being, to punish perjury.

The commencement of an oath was made by the party taking hold of the Bible, after being required by the officer to do so, and ended generally with the words, "So help you God."

The oath is part of centuries-old language still in use in most courtrooms. Pennsylvania's oath is derived from colonial Laws of the Commonwealth, enacted in 1772, and reads (unless it’s been changed):

"You [and each of you] do swear by Almighty God, the Searcher of all hearts, that the evidence you shall give this court [and Jury] in this issue now being tried shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and as you shall answer to God on the last great day."

North Carolina has witnesses "appeal to God, as a witness of truth and avenger of all falsehood."

A 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision guaranteed oath-takers the freedom to conscientiously object to religion or the swearing of oaths.

“In the Spirit of Truth”

These traditions, along with the trappings of the oath, impress on people the importance of things said and done in a trial setting. "I think people like having traditions to show the decorum of the court."

House of Representatives and Senate (Oath or Affirmation), as mandated by Article VI of the Constitution and the U.S. Code (unless I don’t have recent changes):

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

But to acknowledge the controversial nature of this subject, I have read Noah Webster’s “On Test Laws, Oaths of Allegiance and Abjuration, and Partial Exclusions from Office,” Mar. 1787, as well as a few other views.

__________________________

Maybe we can agree on this oath, “A New Oath of Lawyering.”

We need a new way to start the trial. Maybe even a new “Oath of Lawyering.” One that would be given to the trial lawyer at the commencement of every trial:

“Is counsel ready to begin and does he/she promise to ask for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

__________________________

I’ve never claimed any one post, or multiple posts, is the definitive work on a topic. It is not my intent to mislead or to be untruthful or to state all of the arguments, pro and con. If I wanted to do that, I’d write a doctoral dissertation or a book (which is about what this discussion has become).

I welcome all corrections and differing opinions, but I’d prefer a friendlier tone.

“God loves hypocrites too.” I’m very glad that He does.

Are you always so disdainful of people without degree's? Do you think that auto mechanics don't needa scientific aptitude, or communication skills or the desire to help others? When the man {or woman} is working on your brakes, wouldn't you want him {or her}to be conscientious and pay very close attention to detail. When someone like myself is working on your gas furnace do you think I don't pay close attention to detail, if I goof up there goes your house. As far the recent controversy goes, how long has the Pill been around, thirty or more years I'm sure, so I would think most of the pharmacy people should have thought about that sooner, but hey I'm just one of those people without a degree that it appears you look down on.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

My first post about pharmacists was an answer to Hack; I also tried to answer River, SusieQ, & Bad PTC. I didn't bring up the subject, but I did try to present what I perceive to be the arguments of some pharmacists. My answering these posts came from a “desire to help others,” and the effort I invested came from my desire to be “conscientious and pay very close attention to detail.” That’s just how I was raised.

The "smiley" icons were to lighten the tone of my responses to Hack & Bad PTC and my effort to remain on friendly terms.

I am NOT disdainful of people with degrees (including pharmacists) or without degrees (including AC servicemen, if that’s the current terminology, auto mechanics, etc.). I listed the requirements for a pharmacist only because a pharmacist was compared to a liquor store clerk (my assumption was that the employee stocked shelves and/or did other unskilled labor, which is honorable work, if done well).

By stating skills required of a pharmacist, I in no way negated skills required in other professions or employment or life. I was not the one to use clerks or mechanics as examples.

Please give specific examples of my being disdainful of any employment skills and education or training.

I associate with a wide variety of people (family & friends), for example: AC serviceman, electricians (IBEW and non-union), plumbers, assistant funeral director and mortician or undertaker , MARTA service employee, law enforcement officers, educators, mothers, lawyers, accountants, physicians, pilots, nurses ....

So, maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to judge me?

Degrees, degrees!
There are Oxford degrees and there are degrees from LaSalle by wire.
Having a good imagination, failing occasionally, getting something new done instead of shuffling papers for some snob to read and present you with another piece of paper is what they like to call "professional." Professional just means that they themself say they are structured to do little harm in a given area---never do invent electricity or autos!
Most of our "thinkers" were self educated. And also most were terrible at cocktail parties or other social functions. Diplomats, hypocrites, etc., fall into the pro class!
Some are born to be productive and some can only be taught by a highly structured method. Never say ain't; research your thoughts to death; use other's ideas; Tackle risky projects---all these not the degreed way.
My "profession" is engineering, but I learned and already knew much more ten years adfter being educated than I ever learned there. They taught me nothing about how to think either, just how to look it up. No it wasn't LaSalle.

My "profession" is engineering

Oh hey $! Are you by any chance a Sanitation Engineer? Just curious because I've had to wade through all the garbage in the recent blogs section. If you are one, I'd appreciate it if you could help us clear some of that out. Thanks in advance!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Save yourself and maybe others too. Concealed Carry Permit How-To

Denise, you’ve got to love this appointment!

President Bush yesterday appointed Susan Orr to oversee federal family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. Susan was an adjunct professor at Pat Robertson’s Regent University.

In a 2001, Orr embraced a Bush administration proposal to “stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees” to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr.

In a 2000 Weekly Standard article, Orr railed against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice,” said Orr. “It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.”

Unless you post links to your statements about Dr. Orr, I can't comment since I do not know the context or the bias of such statements or the reliability of your sources. Many negative statements about Dr. Orr are at such sites as Think Progress, Democrat Underground, etc. The Weekly Standard article does not appear to be online any more.

Dr. Orr is medically correct in stating that "fertility is not a disease." There is always negotiation about what health insurance plans cover and the costs of such coverage.

Dr. Orr objected to a Washington, D.C., city council bill requiring health insurers to pay for contraceptives because there was no “conscience clause” allowing employers to withhold contraceptive coverage included. Her comments were very likely misconstrued and "merely demonstrated her support of consumer choice of coverage."

It's ironic that leftist liberals call her "extremist" yet think of Elders as being mainstream. Rep. Henry Waxman released a statement saying, “This appointment is absurd.” Now, I know Dr. Orr must be doing something right!

HHS spokesman Kevin Schweers said that Orr's "breadth of programmatic and managerial experience makes her highly qualified to serve as acting director." (Washington Post)

Besides that Dr. Orr has a terrific smile and possesses high moral character.

You can bet George and Laura Bush practiced birth control. They only had one known pregnancy.
But they are agin it!
Same old story: I know how to handle it---you don't!

Maine middle school to offer birth control

Truly the American way. By cutting out the middle man the problem goes away.

If I had a prescription for birth control pills, I would expect Eckerd, CVS, Kroger Pharmacy, Wal-Mart Pharmacy and other drug stores to have someone on the premises to fill it.

You are pathetic.

I agree with you first sentence but not your last.

I too have typed offensive posts, on occasion, only to delete (some of) them before hitting the Post comment button.

I often times don't agree with what Denise has to say but she does put a lot of time an effort into her posts. Her research is usually on point, if not always complete, but that's life.

I would rather argue with her than many on this blog. At least Denise makes me go dig up 'all' the facts before I try and challenger her on any given subject.

And she doesn't pick on me for my typo's or sentence structure. For that alone I applaud her.

However, on this particular subject Denise has nowhere to hide. She's taken an indefensible position and has few if any resources to bring to the table.

Think about it. You'd have to be crazy to argue with woman that has two guns if you didn't do your research?

Why do you think Git & Hack are suck-up's to her? Must gun envy.

If you had kept reading, you would have seen that I did apologize to Denise at 4:01 on 10/17/07. Here's what I said:

Ok, I am sorry about that post. What I meant to say was:
Denise, the way you go on and on and on, you are beginning to sound like Dollar. Now that's pathetic.

Denise is NOT pathetic! She's a smart lady. You don't have to agree with her, but she has a right to her opinion.

I agree with Jane. Be nice.

Tug

You made my day! Enjoy the sound of rain, if it ever happens!

Now you be nice to Denise. I have no doubt she has "a life", I think she enjoys researching and studying many topics. Don't read her posts if you find it boring. Just be nice :^)

Actually, I'm quite happy!

Have a glorious day! It might rain.

Ok, I am sorry about that post. What I meant to say was:
Denise, the way you go on and on and on, you are beginning to sound like Dollar. Now that's pathetic!

Mary Cheney -- How very libertine of you.

Your comments remind me of "sleazy" Kerry and "total slime" Edwards (objectionable language used by Mary Cheney).

She should not be restricted from adopting a child "solely on the basis they are both female" but because she chooses a deviant lifestyle and would not be a good role model for a child. Children need both a mother and a father, interaction with both sexes, to develop normal gender identity.

Would you farm out kids to these "progressive" guys? "EXTREMELY GRAPHIC"

WARNING: Homosexuals acting "naturally" (i.e., vile) in public in San Francisco.

"Good" but "Colorful" Progressive Parents just having fun

They are strong disciplinarians.

This woman looks like she would be so much fun "playing cowboys and Indians with, don't you think? I know that's not currently acceptable terminology; so, we'll just call it mother-child bonding.

Playing dress-up is so much fun!

A public "Adult" Costume Party with children in attendance -- AUDIO

"Diversity" Training for Children

__________________________

The "Gay" Agenda: "They're trying to indoctrinate our children. They're intentionally presenting this [King & King] as a norm."

"Gay fairy Tales for Second-Graders?"

John Edwards says, "yes, absolutely”

__________________________

"an elementary school plan designed by activists pushing for acceptance of the transgender lifestyle"

"The curriculum does not call upon schools to condemn or condone any aspect of a lifestyle."

"Jesse's Dream Skirt, a book aimed at kindergarteners [sic] through third-graders, tells the story of a young boy who likes to wear his mother's clothes, eventually asking for his own skirt. Mom makes him one, and he wears the skirt to school, teaching his friends a lesson about acceptance. Dad, who objects, is the story's villain."

__________________________

"In Mommy's High Heels" by Paul Selig

Let them say I'm like a girl!
What's wrong with being like a girl?!
And let them jump and jeer and whirl –
They are the swine, I am the pearl.
And let them laugh and let them scream!
They’ll be beheaded when I’m queen!
When I rule the world! When I rule the world!
When I rule the world, in my mommy’s high heels!

__________________________

"Transgender Teacher Angers Eagleswood Parent" -- From William to Lily

__________________________

"How Do 'Sexual Orientation' and 'Gender Identity' Affect Public Policy?"

"The liberals say this issue is about tolerance, but it’s really about tyranny. If the 'gay rights' movement succeeds in all they want, we will see the criminalization of Christianity. People with traditional moral values will find themselves on the wrong side of the law."
__________________________

"I would not use religious definitions of life" -- How about medical ones?

Basic biology (see any high school textbook): The child is living until he or she is "terminated."

"I would hire supreme court justices for their reverence to the constitution" -- Is that the actual Constitution or its supposed penumbras and shadows?

No, your position is definitely NOT helpful.

You wrote:

"Children need both a mother and a father, interaction with both sexes, to develop normal gender identity."

Alan Keyes and his wife have a gay son. The VP and his wife a gay daughter. Heterosexual couples all over the planet have gay children. Why Denise? Where did the Cheney's blow it?

Kevin "Hack" King

Alan Keyes' daughter or anyone else's child makes his or her own decisions in life. Parents can provide moral and religious instruction, but the child must accept it and act upon it. I cannot hold parents ultimately responsible for children who become drug addicts, alcoholics, thieves, adulterers, or any other "sinner" category. We are all sinners in need of salvation, and each person will be judged for his own actions. (Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment. Hebrews 9:27)

Why do some people choose one evil over another? One answer might be that some children rebel against their parents and seek to hurt them by a lifestyle that will bring them the most embarrassment. Another might be a person becoming involved with one sin that leads to another and another, such as using drugs leading to becoming a dealer or stealing to get money to support your habit.

Here's something for us all to think about:

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)

Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. (1 John 3:15)

But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean' [defiled]. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. (Matthew 15:18-19) Notice that one sin does not defile more than another; that's a distinction we like to make.

Your question is a theological question based in the doctrine of original sin. Do you want that long discussion now?

You can find out more about being a good person HERE. It won't take much of your time.

"Alan Keyes' Daughter: I'm a 'liberal queer'"

"My daughter is an adult, and she is responsible for her own actions. What she chooses to do has nothing to do with my work or political activities."

If you want to know what Alan Keyes believes, you can read some of what he's written.

"Violence Against the Soul" by Alan Keyes

"We teach our children to disapprove of homosexuality, to shun the behavior and those who would seduce them into it. We teach them that this is a necessary element of their conscience and of their adherence to religious faith."

"Separation of Morals and State" by Alan Keyes

"Liberals believe that it is unconstitutional for citizens to act on their moral judgments, such as the view that homosexuality is wrong, in their dealings with fellow citizens. They believe that the state has the right coercively to dictate conscience on these points — and on a civil rights pretext force citizens to accept what is contrary to their religious conscience."

Conclusion: "It is possible to teach people to respect each other out of respect for God, for the Constitution, for the law and for the principle of human dignity without requiring acceptance of particular lifestyles and sexual behaviors as morally equal to others. In its zeal to prevent violence to the body, the state must respect the wisdom of its founders and refrain from committing more serious violence against the soul."

"Alan Keyes Teaches Sex Education Lesson to Homosexual Interviewer"

"Myths and Facts"

"Frequently Asked Questions"

"Doesn’t God love everyone? Even homosexuals?" and other questions

"When Your Kids Break Your Heart" written by a mother (Barbara Johnson) whose son turned to the homosexual lifestyle (after losing one son, a Marine in Vietnam, among other tragedies)

If you were a pharmacist at a public company, I don't give a hoot what your personal religious views of birth control are. I would support laws that would make it illegal for you not to fill prescriptions based on your personal agenda. It is insane to me that pharmacists are inserting their religious views into the lives of customers and selectively filling what medical doctors have prescribed. You may have seen the report today that world-wide abortion rates are down, and this is attributed to an increased use in profilactics and other forms of birth control. Personally, I think that is a good thing.

Kevin "Hack" King

"I don't give a hoot what your personal religious views ... are."

How very libertarian of you!

Exactly which Christian principles do you base your decision on?

_________________________

I recommend Dr. Rossiter's The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness for a classic study on insanity.

Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates [might could work on that part a bit ] with passion.

Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate:

It does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it;

It does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation.

It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating.

The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice.

The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities. [Just look at Dollar.]

_________________________

“In Government We Trust” sums it up.

Where to start, according to your post in which you recommend Dr. Rossiter's book, since my father in law is a liberal he doesn't believe in individual liberty { he would accord you more liberties then you would him}, he does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating, and I could go on but you read your post. Now, if you recommend this drivel I guess you believe it, and if this isn't a blanket statement covering millions of people you have yet to meet, or know then what is it. By the way, on one of your earlier post aboutthe Homo's I find it funny that one of the site's you linked to was a Catholic site against the Homosexuals so tell me is it all homo's the Catholics are against or is it ok to cover it up when it's only a priest and it's just young boys they're molesting?

I yam what I yam...Popeye

The "smiley" icons were to lighten the tone of my responses to Hack. I think that Hack would agree that we have an online sparring match. (I'd never try to match physical strength with him!)

If you have problems with DR. Rossiter's clinical diagnosis ("drivel" ), discuss it with him, but be willing to pay the bill ($250+ for 45 min.)!

Dollar should seek his help since he was in the Army, and Dr. R was an Army psychiatrist. Maybe $’s problems started way back there?

Dr. Rossiter is a forensic psychiatrist (he holds a medical degree, i.e., he's a physician who can prescribe drugs and other medical treatments in addition to conducting psychotherapy) who has “diagnosed and treated mental disorders, with a special interest in personality pathology and its developmental origins,” for more than 40 years. (Maybe he even treated $ way back then!)

______________________________

"he would accord you more liberties then you would him" -- Another "blanket statement"?

Exactly which "liberties" would he accord me or deny me? Is it in his power to grant liberty? Just wondering.

______________________________

Although I'm not a Catholic, I'll give you something to consider about the molesters who were Catholic priests.
Do two wrongs make a right?

“The majority of the victims, according to the official reports on the cases, involved people [primarily males] who were past puberty, i.e., young teenagers.” Therefore, most of the molesting priests are not pedophiles but are homosexuals.

“There had been charges that a minority of the clergy [about 4% of all U.S. priests, figures similar to abuse in other institutions such as education (U. S. Department of Education)] had been practicing such behavior for decades, alleging that a ‘homosexual collective’ within the priesthood viewed child sex abuse as a ‘religious rite’ and ‘rite of passage’ for altar boys and young priests.” [Dare I make a value judgment? DISGUSTING!]

“Many dioceses submitted accused priests for intensive psychotherapeutic treatment and assessment, with the priests only resuming pastoral duties when the bishop was advised by the treating psychologists or psychiatrists that it was safe for them to be so assigned.” (See “The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality” and Pedophilia.)

Sadly, this is not a new problem but has been a common occurrence throughout history. Martin Luther made a pilgrimage to “Holy” Rome in 1510 and was appalled to find immense corruption in high ecclesiastical places. Witnessing debauchery on a scale he had never witnessed before, he was horrified by the iniquity that existed among all classes of the clergy. "In the place of sanctity he found only profanity."

Later he wrote, "The knavery, the horrible sinfulness and debauchery that are rampant in Rome.... What sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus they are in the habit of saying, 'If there is a hell, Rome is built over it; it is an abyss whence issues every kind of sin."

(I’m a Protestant, BTW, and I don’t condone immorality by anyone, even Congressmen. Mass. Congressman Gerry Studds – who was 36 years old at the time – acknowledged inviting to his apartment a 16-year-old page who greatly admired him, plied him with vodka and cranberry juice, and engaged in sodomy with him. Studds took the page with him on a two-week trip to Portugal. The page described the arrangement as making him feel "somewhat uncomfortable" because he is not homosexual and had not had a homosexual relationship prior to his relationship with Rep. Studds. "If I could have had my druthers, I would have had the friendship that I had with the man without the sex. And I mentioned that to him." Studds said that he was "never ashamed" of his "consensual relationship" with the teen.)

In other cultures, attraction to adolescents [called ephebophilia or pederasty, was regarded as "an educational institution for the inculcation of moral and cultural values." Adult-child sex or Male Intergenerational Intimacy, the values-neutral terms, if you prefer, is "not generally regarded by psychologists as pathological except when it interferes with other relationships. Sexual desire that includes adolescents as well as older individuals is common among adults with many sexual orientations [such as Mary Kay Letourneau?]."

It was the rise of Christianity that led to the suppression of pederasty (as well as other immorality), once one of the mainstays of classical pagan culture and considered quite normal, because it conflicted with Biblical teaching.

Do you agree with this “brand of Christianity,” or is this just more “intolerance of other people and cultures”?

______________________________

Judith Levine, author of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, which was published by the University of Minnesota Press (after being rejected by many major publishing houses) in the midst of “general panic” about child molestation by the clergy, argues that public misunderstanding denies the sexuality of people under 18, depriving them of meaningful consensual relationships.

Citing the Dutch age-of-consent law as a "good model" (which permits sex between an adult and a person as young as 12 if the young person consents), Levine (who had a sexual relationship with an adult when she was a minor) writes, "Teens often seek out sex with older people, and they do so for understandable reasons: an older person makes them feel sexy and grown-up, protected and special."

Jocelyn Elders, M.D., the controversial former United States surgeon general appointed by Clinton who wrote the foreword, says it's "a vitally important book."

Officials at Minnesota Press knew the book would be controversial (calling it "very nuanced and very complex"); therefore, they had the manuscript reviewed by five academic experts, instead of the usual two, to be sure its contentions were based on sound research. (Levine, who touts her expertise although she holds a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University, used multiple pro-pedophile sources.)

That’s what I’d call “morally bankrupt.”

______________________________

If you want to read a conservative Christian response to this topic, see “The Academic Case for Child Molestation” and “This is more than a book. It's a troubling trend.”

______________________________

I'd be irresponsible not to point out that “the vast majority of priests are thought never to have abused any children (99.8%).”

"Sexual Misconduct Plagues U.S. Schools", "Inaction Keeps Sexual Misconduct in Schools", & "Loopholes Keep Teacher Misconduct Secret" --
"States Not Required to Share Details of Sex-Related Offenses"

Accused of molestation, a male teacher was fired from his first teaching job, but that didn't end his career. Although he had been accused multiple times of abuse, he continued to teach for decades in Illinois and Iowa.

He finally agreed to an early retirement and to surrender his teaching license — 40 years after the initial accusation — because one of his victims and her parents, not a principal or a state agency, persisted in their efforts to stop this man from teaching.

Associated Press investigators found more than 2,500 cases of "bizarre to sadistic" child abuse by educators (who were actually punished) that had occurred over a 5-year period. Most of the abuse never gets reported, and those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can't be proven, and many abusers have several victims.

"The number of abusive educators — nearly three for every school day — speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims."

"Beyond the horror of individual crimes, the larger shame is that the institutions that govern education have only sporadically addressed a problem that's been apparent for years."

"Too often, problem teachers are allowed to leave quietly (nicknamed 'passing the trash' or the 'mobile molester'). That can mean future abuse for another student and another school district."

"State law allows many offenses to remain confidential in education records, even when teachers go to prison and register as sex offenders."

"The lack of information reflects a system for disciplining teachers that, across the country, is often shrouded in secrecy."

“It's much more prevalent than people would think."

“State efforts to strengthen laws against sex abuse by teachers have run into opposition from school boards and teachers unions.”

I would definitely not call this professional conduct. Should I be so intolerant as to call it immoral?

You're the one who cited this Rossiter not me, if you don't believe what he's saying why bring him up. If what he proposes isn't a blanket statement maybe you can tell me what it is. You must agree or you wouldn't have posted it. The difference between you and my Father in law is he might not agree with what you do or did , but he would never presume to tell you what you can do with your body. as in abortion or contraceptives. I still think it funny that the Catholics can condemn something and at the same time cover it up for years and years while at the same time giving these animals one chance after another at the expense of a young boy. As for the other two feet of post about the teachers that wasn't part of this argument so I don't see how it applies at this time.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

What is done to the baby's body?

I see inherent problems with the Catholic hierarchical system and in no way excuse what's been done. Others have made the connection between school teachers and priests because of the cover-ups and ignoring the problems until lawsuits have been brought. It's just current news, and I thought that someone might be interested since a lot more children go to school than to a Catholic church.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

My father-in-law, a retired presbyterian pastor, who I consider one of the finest men I have ever encountered and had the pleasure to know is shockingly liberal. Am I to understand that he is morally bankrupt because he doesn't subscribe to your brand of Christianity. I think this is another of your blanket statements that you use to get your point across and it shows your intolerance of other people and cultures.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

You're perhaps misunderstanding my comments. You can say if your father-in-law is "morally bankrupt," but I can’t since I don't know him. Someone can be very moral and not be a born-again Christian. Sadly, some non-"religious" people are more moral than professing Christians. Someone can be very moral and/or a Christian, yet not understand morality within the sphere of government.

How do you define "shockingly liberal"?

Morals: Conduct; behavior; course of life, in regard to good and evil [How do you define "good and evil"?]; the practice of the duties of life

Moral: Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word, however, may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness. Conformed to rules of right, or to the divine law respecting social duties; virtuous; just; as when we say, a particular action is not moral.

What is the source of your system of morality?

"Morality is intimately related to a nation's government, for as James Madison wrote, 'To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.' Morality refers to conduct that is proper between members of society."

"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed....No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." ~ Noah Webster

Exactly what is my "brand of Christianity"?

Since you've said that you're about as religious as a rock (if I remember correctly ), how are you qualified to discuss the finer points of theology? I'm not a theologian either, but there are many sites online, as well as many books, where you can find answers to theological questions.

My "brand of Christianity" is valid only if it adheres to a higher standard: the written Word of God. Sola Scriptura was "a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a definitive principle of Protestants today."

Please expound on your assumptions about my "intolerance of other people and cultures."

I sense a few "blanket statements" that you've made.

Denise...why is it always "christian" morals etc. with you and others of the far right,radical,conservative, religious extremists. Why not Jewish values, or Judeo-Christioan values or even, heaven forbid Muslim (not talking "the terrorists" here, relax)values? After all, J.C. was Jewish and it wasn't until MANY years later that the new testament was penned by man. In my humble opinion, you can get all your answers on right and wrong, morals and ethics from the 10 rules for living passed down from the Mt. to Moses and the people of Israel....the Jewish people. Why not be inclusive? Just a thought and question

Denise, in this instance, I will not reply. I will simply let your words stand as a testament to why our democratic system of government is far superior to religious theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. I find your replies to be a bit shocking.

Kevin "Hack" King

No reply?

Actually, we have a republican form of government.

Religious theocracy is redundant: Theocracy means a government ruled by or subject to religious authority; more precisely, government of a state by the immediate direction of God, as proscribed in the Old Testament for the nation of Israel.

Saudi Arabia and Iran -- Aren't those Muslim countries? Their forms of government have little (nothing?) in common with our form of government, established upon Christian principles.

Is that "shocking"?

Are you a Christian? And if so you don't think that God should not have anything to do with our Nation and our leaders of our Nation. I tend to differ. If our Nation turns their back on GOD- we will pay a high price. Our entire Nation started out with belief in God and saw need of Him. So, what's your take on being Christian? It has nothing to do with government. It has everything to do with government. Do you want someone in office that don't even believe in God, because if you do and another 9-11 happens then what- who will they turn to? These are questions to you, I thought someone said your a Christian.

I want a president to go to war with the advice of his father who has actually led a war in that region and not a President who tries to interpret the will of God with respect to our pre-emptive war plans. i do not feel the Lord was wrong on WMD. When we try to conflate our desires and ideas with the will of God, i believe we venture into an incredible and dangerous place. This is what the people we like to call "terrorists" do. They use the words and will of Muhammed as they see it to motivate their followers into doing things they might not otherwise. I am not saying our government works this way, but i feel we have never been closer.
more on religion and law. I say "religion" because, believe it or don't, there is more than one religion in this country. What you seek for christianity may be applicable to Islam or Buddism one day. Do you want that? Do we really want to codify into law the Pope's view on condom use? I think not. Do we want to make envy illegal and put tv ad makers in jail? Will I go to jail for coveting now? Are we really having this discussion? honestly?

Kevin "Hack" King

Who said these quotes?

"Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."

___________________________

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose."

___________________________

“I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel.”

Apparently, she's not familiar with the terms "Rule of Law" and "Constitutional Republic".

I totally agree with you, her replies are shocking, and frankly, a scary insight into her thinking. I don't see much point in continuing to read her dogma.

Our Country isn't perfect, but FAR superior to a religious theocracy.

"Apparently," you don't know how to read. Exactly where did I use the words "religious theocracy"?

Please define the term since you're using it (I didn't).

I definitely know that our government is a constitutional REPUBLIC, not a democracy, as so many today are misinformed about the difference.

Exactly where do I propose not being under the "Rule of Law"? The "Rule of Law" is not upheld by San Fransicko liberals. Prove otherwise.

I oppose an oligarchy: rule by the Supreme Court. But if I'm misinformed, I'm sure that I'll find out from my constitutional law class that's taught by a constitutional law attorney. It's been awhile since my last law class; so, I'll listen very closely.

Exactly which of my replies are "shocking, and frankly, scary"?

No "shock" at the "indoctrination" forced upon children in public schools? No "shock" at the debauchery at "Gay" Pride events? Now, that's truly scary.

I’m enjoying the discussion and hate to side-track it but I have always wondered why it is so important for Republicans to deny we live in a democracy.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language’s number 1 definition of ‘democracy’ is: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Since this is so clearly a definition of our government and since you were so emphatic about it: “I definitely know that our government is a constitutional REPUBLIC, not a democracy, as so many today are misinformed about the difference" I was wondering if you could explain.

Since constitutional republics, parliamentary systems and others are types of democracies, why is it so important for the right (see, I do listen to Neal) to deny this obvious fact?

An inquiring mind just wants to know.

You really should listen to Boortz better!

Here's the explanation:

"Beav & Jeff -- 'Democrat.'"

Two Lions and One Antelope voting on which one to eat for dinner is a Democracy. Majority Rule=Mob Rule.

Ah, but you see in a democracy we also provide hundreds of antelopes for the lions to eat and then enough survive to procreate!

I apologize if this explanation is a little over your head - the answer is not an easy one to explain.

DEMOCRACY VS. REPUBLIC

-----------------------
“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

I know you like to write LONG drawn out self absorbing thoughts, so it may not be interesting to you.

That being said, back to the one thought. You seem awfully worried about other people's activities that seem to have absolutely no bearing on your well being.

You post about what the relationship between religion and govt/law should be. My answers cover: The death penalty, abortion, gay marraige, adoption, advertisement wrt alcohol, supreme court justices, blue laws, laws on prayer, sexual contact between heterosexuals, and birth control.
You seized on the gay issue like a dog to raw meat and then you bring out numerous examples of fringe behavior to try and imply that is the normative life of a gay person. I have a feeling you don't know many gay people. I feel you get your examples from what is served to you by the fringe on the right which attempts to criminalize sexual preference. The examples you brought up weren't even covered by me. I never ever mentioned teaching homosexuality in school, did I. I don't think it should be taught. I do think that it is none of my or your business what others do in their private lives, or whom they choose to love. I think your view that homosexuality is morally wrong is interesting in light of the homosexuality at all levels of the church itself. From grand-standing politicians you support to "Catholics against Kerry" (an actual bumper sticker I saw in 04), I think thou dost protest too much, because judgement is comming from those whose lives won't stand up to equal scrutiny. At any rate, Denise, this is an argument that I don't have the stomach for, honestly. We are all entitled to our views. I just hope neither of us is FORCED to live acording to the views of the other. Kevin "Hack" King

"I never ever mentioned teaching homosexuality in school, did I. I don't think it should be taught."

WHY?

"I just hope neither of us is FORCED to live acording to the views of the other."

Then why do you want to FORCE pharmacists to violate their consciences?

omg you really are kinda angry (at the things that matter the least....others private lives) and really not living in reality (it's their J O B!) if they have a problem of conscience either find another profession, get another job or better yet......open their own place and exclude those who don't agree with their narrow views........jeesh already

You know that we live in one of the most conservative communities you will find in this country. Please go to the top of your blog and read down through the comments. Does this not cause you to reflect a bit, and consider that your views may be just slightly out of step with how a nation of free people thinks and behaves? Remember, what you seek to gain for christian pharmacists and legislators and judges may one day apply to members of those professions of different faiths. Again, I feel we should all rejoice in being part of a country where you can have whatever religious beliefs you desire. But I also believe in "don't tread on me." Don't force your secular or religious views on me. I want to be free to make my own decisions. We won't change eachother's minds, but let's not try to force the issues. I don't care to snoop behind the doors of other's bedrooms or within their medical records. I can't imagine a pharmicist telling me that he doesn't believe in antibiotics so I can't have any. Or he doesn't believe in anti depressants so he or she won't prescribe them. that isn't my idea of "land of the free".

Kevin "Hack" King

I don't base my beliefs on popular opinion, nor do I stick my finger in the wind to determine what's right or wrong.

Lack of support in this blog for health provider “refusal clauses” or other issues of morality is not a sure indicator of "popular opinion," as if that's the determiner of right and wrong. Many states now have "conscience clauses," just as 44 states have enacted legislation prohibiting same-sex marriages or the recognition of same-sex marriages formed in another jurisdiction. Typically, constitutional amendments defining marriage between a man and a woman have passed with an overwhelming majority. Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 (which was signed by President Bill Clinton), barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowing states to do the same. More and more doctors in the UK are refusing to perform abortions; and hopefully, with more information and support, more women will choose to give birth to their children.

Strange that you claim that you don't want to "force your secular views" on others, yet that is exactly what you propose. You "want to be free to make [your] own decisions" but want to deny that same right to others.

The main purpose of antibiotics or antidepressants is not to end the life of a child, who will then not be born to enjoy the "land of the free."

Should a pharmacist fill a prescription for thalidomide or Accutane (both cause serious birth defects), if the woman is pregnant? What about the Accutane if the woman is on antidepressants? Just something to think about.

Would a doctor prescribe a birth-defedt-causing agent to a pregnant woman? Arew these items not prescription only? Would that decision not rest with the MD?

Kevin "Hack" King

I've read these posts several times and maybe aI'm just missing this, but where does Hack say anything that is forcing his secular views on others and what right is he denying others?

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Requiring (forcing) pharmacists to go against their conscience and religious beliefs would be in effect barring Christians with these beliefs from this profession. There have been equitable solutions worked out in many states, one of the most recent being Illinois.

The right that he tacitly denies another is the right endowed by our Creator: the right to life. We often choose to focus on the mother's "rights" (which did not exist until 1973), but what about the rights of the child? Please read Gianna's story before you answer. I've heard her speak. Look into her eyes and consider if, just maybe, abortion is wrong.

Gianna's Jessen

Have a good day! Your work must be a lot more pleasant now that it's cooler.

Thanks for your comments, I agree. Of course you do know we are the few that believe this way. I do support what you are saying.

Would a teetotaler apply for job wine tasting?

Would a person who does not believe in guns apply for a job with the NRA?

Think about it!!!!!!!!!

Let me pose this question to you, if a pharmicist is a skinhead racist who hides behind some skinhead church teaching and Hack goes into the place looking to get a prescription filled the pharmacist can deny him his medicine on religious grounds and that it is against his conscience. If I remember right Hack's race had no right to vote at onr time, or to own land or even to education, does it matter when they aquire the rights or how long they've had them?

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Denise, I just have to jump in here. I've been reading up til now, but your idea that pharmacists can choose whether to fill a prescription or not, based on their personal religious views, is flat wrong. If a prescription is legal, according to our laws, (passed in a free country, where we all got to vote our lawmakers into office, remember?) then the pharmacist is legally bound to fill it, since it is written as "Doctor's orders". We each have the right to express our religious beliefs, but not enforce them on others. The laws of this country apply to all of us; religious beliefs do not.

Nobody is forcing anybody to act against their religious beliefs. If their religious beliefs go against the dispensing of legal prescription drugs, then they are morally bound to find other employment. Otherwise, you have an individual pharmacist substituting his/her religious beliefs for the law of the land. That cannot be allowed.

If a person worked in a liquor store, became a born-again Christian and a teetotaler, decided that people should not buy liquor and refused to sell alcohol, how long would he keep his job?

The answer is he would have to quit his job and find another one.

Trying to force others to believe your religion and yours only is not required. Preach in the streets if you must, but stop criticizing the government for not adhering exactly to your religion only!
That is what starts wars.
Denise, tell me about how holy you are but leave laws and the government out of it!

The code words Denise uses have different definitions for different people.

The words "liberty, consent, and voluntary cooperation" mean something different for one half of our people than they do for Denise's half!
Laws that effect Denise in a bad way are bad.
Laws that effect Denise in a good way are good.
"Consent" means: don't tell me what to do, but do tell those other suckers what to do!
"Voluntary cooperation" means: me but not you. or vice-verso!

That's the typical evangelical and way-right of the spectrum philosophy.It's also why the Republican party is starting to ignore and pay lip-service to the fringe elements of that philosophy. It's an unelectable agenda that is based on codifying the Bible(their interpretation)and their simplistic philosophy of Good Choice=legal, Bad Choice=illegal into law. Much like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition that have both fallen apart, they simply aren't close to the actual majority, nor will they ever be. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson who so eloquently put it" this country is in no way founded on the principles of Christianity." Hear! Hear!

Oh yeah, here's something about an earlier post you had on the subject....It's actually "legal" to advertise liquor on television/radio and there are ads running sometimes for Seagram's and others I've seen. Why they haven't been seen in much quantity is because after the FCC lifted that restriction, corporate media still had a de facto ban on it. Now cigarettes? Banned by law.

NUK

Why are you knocking bpr? From what I read she believes like Denise. What is it with you. You come on strong. You don't have to knock people.

Perhaps it would help if you spent a little time researching the ridiculous statements that BPR made while "knocking" people which lead up to the "knocking" she received. Until then... good day.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

What about ONE NATION UNDER GOD

Am I to disagree? What in the world are you talking about now?

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY