Me too.

I remember one where the policeman at the door says "Andy, you took the bus home last night."

Capp says, "So?"





























































































"The bus company want it back."

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

Careful! Don't let mayhem see this!

__________________
Eudaimonia

We'll quietly sneak down the back stairs and maybe he won't notice.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

Take the title of this post anyway you like.
I just saw this thread, and now I am in a really POOR FUCKING MOOD

jseal, at the risk of repeating points already made here.

1. Pharmacists are licensed by the State. (as am I, by the way) They are REQUIRED by law to perform their duties as outlined in State law and regulations. I too am bound by regulations. Not all of which I agree with, but perform as directed. And don't take that to too extreme an issue, as most of what I discuss disagree with is administrative, plus issues about inadequate patient to nurse care ratios.

2. The argument that this is a new issue
"I need only point out that the rules of the game were changed after the pharmacists had made their career decisions" is fallacious at the very FUCKING least. New rules as well as new meds and therapies, not to mention new uses of older meds become available constantly, even daily.

3. The rule violates their religious and moral beliefs.
If I accept your arguement, a pharmacist can refuse to issue AIDS medicine, pain meds, contraceptives, antibiotics, seizure meds, diabetes meds, cold and allergy medicine, for whatever moral reason he or she might decide.
This is not a stretch. I can easily create a religiously (not scientific) valid reason for withholding any of these therapies.

4. Causes death of a fertilized egg, thus ends a life.
BULLFUCKING SHIT!!! Who knows if there is a fertilized egg?
This med works in a number of ways.
It delays ovulation, preventing an egg from being available for fertilization.
It may temporarily STOP ovulation, having the same effect.
(remember that post intercourse there is viable sperm in the womb for several days, so this delay is very effective.)
It is THEORIZED that if there is a "free floating" fertilized egg, one that has not yet attached to the uterine wall and begun to grow and develop, the meds may irritate the lining of the uterus to the point where the egg can not attach. If there is already and egg attached, this med will HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER, as it is NOT an abortificent.

This issue is a pure political CRAP designed to instill more pain, antagonism and pure conflict between people, especially in those who don't understand the science, all for political gain (power)
How many of you knew that well OVER ONE HALF of all pregnancies, (some theorize as many as 75%) end in what is medically known as a "spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage? There's no deep, dark sinister aspect to this. Simply, that percentage of IMPLANTED fertilized eggs are defective, not viable, and REJECTED by the Womans' body, most often without her knowledge that she was ever pregnant. How many fertilized NOT implanted eggs are expelled? Many times the number of implanted eggs. Sometimes they simply never find purchase.
This raises doubt on the enitre idea that EVERY FERTILIZED egg is going to develop into a human child, doesn't it?
Do we next require that every woman of child bearing age be restricted to bed for several days or even weeks post coitus to ensure that any fertilized egg has the best chance of attaching and developing?

When a practitioner (and I have LOTS and LOTS of problems thinking of pharmacist as "Practioners of Medicine"- Yes, they are part of the family, but therapies are always BEST decided by the CLINICIAN who KNOWS, TOUCHES AND EXAMINES the patient) violate law and their own code of professional conduct, they must be prepared for the result.

There is a well known story of a local, VERY conservative MD who refused to perform emergency surgery on a woman who suffering a tubal pregancy, he refused to "terminate a fetus".
Small town, the only other doctor was brought in, but too late. She died, he went to prison, where, forgive me, I hope he suffered horrible pain and indignity for many years.

A pharmacist who refuses to prescribe the "MAP" should be liable for support for the child if one results from the sexual encounter.
Period.
(the father too, of course, but a child needs lot of support)

So:Put your money where your HALF FUCKING ASSED IGNORANT PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS ARE, RHONDA AND MARGO.



WW

__________________
"I wondered, am I a lesbian, am I straight, or bisexual? Then I realized that I am just a slut.
So where's MY parade?"

---Margaret Cho

Fortunately for all of us, Judicial Review is the norm - not the exception.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Look again.
Previously Congress has attempted legislation that included a prophibition against any judicial review of the new law.
It was obviously unconstitutional, and the Federal Court threw it out.
The administration and previous Congresses have prevent judical review of status of prisoners, including Amercian citizens.
More recently the adminstration has directed the Washington DC Federal prosecutor to ignore any contempt charge brought by Congress.
Judicial review is the norm, huh?

WW

__________________
"I wondered, am I a lesbian, am I straight, or bisexual? Then I realized that I am just a slut.
So where's MY parade?"

---Margaret Cho

Wicked Wanda,

Excuse me for quoting you, but the event of the Federal Court throwing the legislation out because it was unconstitutional is what is referred to as "Judicial Review".

As you said, look again. It really does work for ALL of us.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Wicked Wanda,

I am not altogether certain how to take your rant post, (post # 34), as you address it to me


... but end it

to the pharmacists.


Still, as you do seem to be responding to posts of mine in at least a few places, the least I can do is to respond where I seem to be the individual to whom you are directing your comments.


No arguments there. Being licensed however does not prevent the plaintiffs from challenging the licensing authority. At least not that I am aware of. Am I mistaken?



No. It is not fallacious. It is because it is a new issue the pharmacists were entitled to file the lawsuit in question. They have legal standing, which is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be affected by the law being challenged, and the controversy can be resolved by legal action. As the Federal court accepted that the plaintiffs have legal standing, I am comfortable in stating that you are mistaken.



I did not make that argument.



This is where you weirded me out. As I said the exact opposite, I must assume that here you have redirected your rant from me to the pharmacists in Washington State. Permit me to post the relevant portion of post #11.


Perhaps you overlooked that part of my post.

I hope your mood changes for the better.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Thank you, OF, for summarizing my thoughts in a much more coherent manner than I was apparently able to.

__________________
Though I am different from you,
We were born involved in one another.

For it was not into my ear you whispered, but into my heart. It was not my lips you kissed, but my soul.

Complete surrender should not just come at moments in which one faces overwhelming odds, but in the calm when it seems one is personally in complete control of one's life.

I'm not compelling or coercing...I'm simply calling upon someone to perform the service they claim to offer. If a convenience store advertises Hood milk at $2.39 per gallon, I expect to be able to purchase it without having to worry about the lactose intolerant vegan behind the register deciding for me that I shouldn't be drinking it.





Please explain this.

__________________
Though I am different from you,
We were born involved in one another.

For it was not into my ear you whispered, but into my heart. It was not my lips you kissed, but my soul.

Complete surrender should not just come at moments in which one faces overwhelming odds, but in the calm when it seems one is personally in complete control of one's life.

__________________

I'm sorry, sir, you have to move to the back of the line...

__________________
Plug me into somethin'

If the theory does not conform to the facts, then the facts must be discarded.

No good deed ever goes unpunished

Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, & beat you with experience.

Oh stop!

I just didn't understand the reference. I'm not the brightest guy, you know.

__________________
Though I am different from you,
We were born involved in one another.

For it was not into my ear you whispered, but into my heart. It was not my lips you kissed, but my soul.

Complete surrender should not just come at moments in which one faces overwhelming odds, but in the calm when it seems one is personally in complete control of one's life.

WildIrish,

Reasonable questions. I shall respond to each separately.




Staying with your example, the pharmacy in question wishes to continue to not offer the milk you wish to purchase. The State, through the policing arm of the licensing board is attempting to compel the pharmacists to offer the milk. If they continue to not offer the milk, they will be punished. Note that the only people being compelled to do anything are the pharmacists, and that they are being coerced into engaging in behavior, selling milk in your example, they wish to avoid.

Note also that in this scenario, the one which the pharmacists and pharmacy in question are advancing, you are not being compelled to purchase anything at all from the pharmacy. Nothing at all. This non-coercive relationship enables you, and others who share your POV to withdraw your business from this pharmacy and any other which fails to meet your standards, and rewards any pharmacy which does. Let us, for the sake of argument take as given that most people share your POV and not that of these “refuseniks”. What do you think will happen? The pharmacy in question will loose business proportionate to that fraction of the market which agrees with you. If you and yours are 100% in the right, the pharmacy will do what any rational business will do – it will stoke the products its customers want it to stock – or it will close its doors.

For an example that this technique works, you need look no further than at the time slot that Don Inmus used to fill.

I think this describes the position these plaintiffs have adopted – coercion is unnecessary. They (and seemingly their employer) feel that there is enough room for both positions. The particular legal technique they are employing, that Federal law supersedes State law, is the way that they feel will most likely rule in their favor.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Unfortunately, pharmacies are less frequent in my town than outlets that stock milk.

Perhaps I should just be thankful that the pharmacist endorses my lifestyle and graces me with his trade.

__________________
Though I am different from you,
We were born involved in one another.

For it was not into my ear you whispered, but into my heart. It was not my lips you kissed, but my soul.

Complete surrender should not just come at moments in which one faces overwhelming odds, but in the calm when it seems one is personally in complete control of one's life.