Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied

[Patroklos]

And castigate her for it? Why not instead look at the fact that she is a generally reasonable individual

Mr. Harley, the only thing in all that rambaling nonsence that even came close to make a point. How does any of those statics on rape somehow force a pharmacy to carry or a pharmacis to sell the MAP? Did you even mention the law or constitution in any of that. And Camden county Georgia is 30 miles North of Jacksonville, or half as far as my drive to work everyday.

I said Mrs. T's comment and then refusal to take responsibility for it was a mark on an otherwise good record. There is not a person on this forum that has not been called out for saying something stupid. And for the most part people here are rather forgiving as long as when you do get called out, you pony up and soldier on. Mrs. T played denial and ran away.

[Az]

Although I agree with the general statement of having a morning-after pill as mandatory, I disagree with the whole "men vs. women" vibe that went around here. It's a discussion, we all have a right to it. Might as well prohibit women in participating in a discussion of male onanism.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

And I assure you once someone tries to sue such a pharmacy the Feds will smack you down. It is cut and dry.

I haven't heard of a law suit yet though even if one occurs it is unlikely the law will be struck down. The state has a right to reasonably regulate how Federally approved medications are distributed and this increases access instead of tries to take away access.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Mr. Harley, the only thing in all that rambaling nonsence that even came close to make a point. How does any of those statics on rape somehow force a pharmacy to carry or a pharmacis to sell the MAP? Did you even mention the law or constitution in any of that.

Have you ever considered that there is this institution known as Congress which can change the law?

We're arguing that they ought to have a legal obligation to do something.

[Dinner]

Mr Harley

[Patroklos]

Have you ever considered that there is this institution known as Congress which can change the law?

We're arguing that they ought to have a legal obligation to do something.

You may be (but not consistantly), but Oerdin sure as hell isn't.

And is it not a good idea to understand the situation now before changing it?

I haven't heard of a law suit yet though even if one occurs it is unlikely the law will be struck down.

Nore have I, but I am sure someone such as yourself will eventually, and be summarily biaatch slaped. Or not. That is in fact the question is it not?

[Kuciwalker]

You were responding to shawn, who was demonstrating that there is a demand for the morning-after pill even in Camden, GA.

[Patroklos]

In that one post, yes Kuci. Now this is page 6 of the thread that I have been involved in since page 2.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So they can put a sign outside their door saying they don't carry the drug because their Christians who don't believe in it. Same thing.

Which is PRECISELY what I was SAYING, Patroklos.

[Q Classic]

Besides - this story actually started with a pramacy who had the damn drug in stock but the employee wouldn't sell it beacause of religious reasons.

Very true. I would have no problem with the pharmacy firing this employee for failure to do their job. Unfortunately, that leads to some shaky ground--is that dismissal based on religious prejudice? Or dismissal based on failure to do their ****ing job.

My vote is for the latter--if they want to impose their morals on customers, they can find a pharmacy willing to work with them on that--but a pharmacy shouldn't have to be forced to continue to employ that pharmacist.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The hypocracy is exposed very clearly when the pharmacists who refuse to give women birth control, much less a morning after pill, go and give men the male birth control.

Or Viagra. Which isn't so much birth control as it is a performance enhancer for sexual intercourse.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I would consider condoms pretty nuetral as far as birth control.

Except that's one of their primary purposes--they have two:

1. Prevent conception by blocking sperm.
2. Prevent transmission of STDs by blocking further contact between intimate bodily fluids.

That's not very neutral at all.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Especially since I support and have in fact used the Morning after Pill.

Dude, you're a chick?

[Patroklos]

Which is PRECISELY what I was SAYING, Patroklos.

As did I, have I been argueing with you? I didn't think I was, if you thought that somehow applied to you, well, it did not.

That's not very neutral at all.

I don't see how that makes it not nuetral at all. When I say that, I mean a condom is as much physically used by the female as the male. You don't see to many men with birth control pills in their night stand, many a female have condoms in theirs.

Dude, you're a chick?

More descripitively, she used it to correct a mutual mistake

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Dude, you're a chick?

That's great.