(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Proposed Wyoming law would allow druggists to refuse prescriptions to anyone for any reason.

"You're black! Moroni says that's a sign of sin! No antibiotics for you! You! You have AIDS, so I think you're gay, and you get no anti-AIDS drugs because being gay is a SINFUL CHOICE!"

Army CID is focusing on the most important thing in its investigations of a Captain who revealed that prisoner torture is rampant, widespread, condoned from above, and he's tried for seventeen months to get it stopped by going through channels. That oh-so-critical thing? Finding out who the noncoms who also reported this are, so they can ruin their careers, too.

Comments

[larpguide.livejournal.com]

I am curious - how is the Wyoming law any different from a restaurant or any business reserving the right to refuse service to anyone? If you do such a thing because a person is black or gay, be it withholding medication or not giving them a seat at a table, it would still be a discrimination crime - wouldn't it?

[sivi-volk.livejournal.com]

In a sane world, yes.

But not in Crazy-land, apparently the new face of the USA.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

I adore your icon.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

i have my doubts tht this would get very far.. you know those "activist judges" and all, spending all their time, trying to procted the people rather than conform to the moral majority...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It would be, except that the new law says it's not when pharmacists do it.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

You know, I'd say that under a reading of the 14th Admendment to the Constitution which conforms to understanding English, it's obviously unconstitutional. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." However, the judges who interpret the Constitution apparently have a tendency to not quite understand plain English, so, who knows.

[sivi-volk.livejournal.com]

Apparently legislation counts as due process of law; that is, some people would interpret this as saying it's okay as long as it's written down as law.

Patently false, yes, but still a possible rationalization.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

odd that nobody has realized that laws like that serve no purpose but to put small pharmecies out of business in favor of Meijer and CVS, who fill so many perscriptions that they can't possibly care what you're on as long as you leave.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

What's that? A corporation supporting a law that favours it but lying to claim it's for "moral" reasons? Say it ain't so, Joe! That's NEVER happened, ever in the history of the universe!

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Agreed, but what i'm saying is that I don't see why small pharmecies don't see that by letting these right-wing nut jobs make descisions like that they're just shooting themselves in the foot.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

I want to know if this means that a Scientoligist Pharmacist can refuse to fill my Zoloft prescription. After all, psychiatry doesn't actually make any sense, it's just the government trying to control the little aliens in possession of our minds.

Also: did you read the second article? The guy's name is Capt. Fishback. *giggle*

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Gee shucks, you mean businesses that let their employees muck around with a stranger's health on the basis of personal belief might go under?

Horrible thought.

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

Pharmacies are *supposed* to muck about with their clients' health, they're the ones keeping track of possible drug interactions between the stuff various doctors prescribe for you.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Did you miss the bit about how I was discussing medications refused on the basis of personal belief, and not possible medical consequences?

Pharmacies are supposed to keep track of possible unintended interactions between the drugs prescribed. Pharmacies are not supposed to decide you shouldn't get medicine because in the happy little world of one of their employees, good people wouldn't (they think) need the medicine you're asking for and just because they're in the business of distributing remedies it doesn't mean they should have to do it for bad people.

But if it makes you feel better, I'll rephrase.

Gee shucks, you mean businesses that let their employees refuse to distribute medication judged appropriate by a doctor on the basis of personal belief might go under?

Horrible thought.

Happy? Was the "horrible thought" bit too much? Do I need to put the "personal belief" part in bold for you?