Illinois Supreme Court: Pro-Life Pharmacists to Get Day in Court

This is another of the many problems directly attributable to illicit government intervention in the marketplace. In America, churches are free to hew to their own moral code and I am free not to attend if I don't agree with it. After all, I'm not taxed to support churches and I can start one of my own at any time that better suits me.

Pharmacies, however, are regulated by the government. As a private citizen, I am taxed to support the regulation, I can't obtain my drugs without dealing with them, and I am not free to start my own pharmacy. It only seems fair that pharmacists, who enjoy a government-sponsored monopsony, likewise not be free to set the terms of dealing with the public.

The solution, same as that for public-school problems and other institutions subject to the heavy hand of the nanny state, is to get the government the hell out of medicine! Then every pharmacist could set the terms of his business dealings and I could refuse to deal with him if his practices didn't suit me.

I imagine that many pharmacists would support that, though it would put a lot of them out of work once Americans started getting their drugs from Amazon.com and Mexico.This is another of the many problems directly attributable to illicit government intervention in the marketplace. In America, churches are free to hew to their own moral code and I am free not to attend if I don't agree with it. After all, I'm not taxed to support churches and I can start one of my own at any time that better suits me.

Pharmacies, however, are regulated by the government. As a private citizen, I am taxed to support the regulation, I can't obtain my drugs without dealing with them, and I am not free to start my own pharmacy. It only seems fair that pharmacists, who enjoy a government-sponsored monopsony, likewise not be free to set the terms of dealing with the public.

The solution, same as that for public-school problems and other institutions subject to the heavy hand of the nanny state, is to get the government the hell out of medicine! Then every pharmacist could set the terms of his business dealings and I could refuse to deal with him if his practices didn't suit me.

I imagine that many pharmacists would support that, though it would put a lot of them out of work once Americans started getting their drugs from Amazon.com and Mexico.This is another of the many problems directly attributable to illicit government intervention in the marketplace. In America, churches are free to hew to their own moral code and I am free not to attend if I don't agree with it. After all, I'm not taxed to support churches and I can start one of my own at any time that better suits me.

Pharmacies, however, are regulated by the government. As a private citizen, I am taxed to support the regulation, I can't obtain my drugs without dealing with them, and I am not free to start my own pharmacy. It only seems fair that pharmacists, who enjoy a government-sponsored monopsony, likewise not be free to set the terms of dealing with the public.

The solution, same as that for public-school problems and other institutions subject to the heavy hand of the nanny state, is to get the government the hell out of medicine! Then every pharmacist could set the terms of his business dealings and I could refuse to deal with him if his practices didn't suit me.

I imagine that many pharmacists would support that, though it would put a lot of them out of work once Americans started getting their drugs from Amazon.com and Mexico.This is another of the many problems directly attributable to illicit government intervention in the marketplace. In America, churches are free to hew to their own moral code and I am free not to attend if I don't agree with it. After all, I'm not taxed to support churches and I can start one of my own at any time that better suits me.

Pharmacies, however, are regulated by the government. As a private citizen, I am taxed to support the regulation, I can't obtain my drugs without dealing with them, and I am not free to start my own pharmacy. It only seems fair that pharmacists, who enjoy a government-sponsored monopsony, likewise not be free to set the terms of dealing with the public.

The solution, same as that for public-school problems and other institutions subject to the heavy hand of the nanny state, is to get the government the hell out of medicine! Then every pharmacist could set the terms of his business dealings and I could refuse to deal with him if his practices didn't suit me.

I imagine that many pharmacists would support that, though it would put a lot of them out of work once Americans started getting their drugs from Amazon.com and Mexico.

Boris,
We definetly have our differences concerning religion, government, etc. However, that comment was hilarious.

A young man goes into a drug store to buy condoms. The pharmacist says the condoms come in packs of 3, 9 or 12 and asks which the young man wants.

"Well," he said, "I've been seeing this girl for a while and she's really hot.

I want the condoms because I think tonight's "the" night. We're having dinner with her parents, and then we're going out. And I've got a feeling I'm going to get lucky after that. Once she's had me, she'll want me all the time, so you'd better give me the 12 pack." The young man makes his purchase and leaves.

Later that evening, he sits down to dinner with his girlfriend and her parents. He asks if he might give the blessing, and they agree. He begins the prayer, but continues praying for several minutes. The girl leans over and says, "You never told me that you were such a religious person." He leans over to her and says, "You never told me that your father is a pharmacist."

Boris:

That's the oldest pharmacist joke which I heard close to 40 yrs ago starting out as a clerk in the local pharmacy.

As to matters of conscience, the premise of the argument above is false, and by the rules of logic so it the conclusion. No one, including the religious cleansing exposed thief Slobodan Blagojevich has a right to tell pharmacists what they can or cannot dispense, it is their professional and moral prerogative....you want to practice pharmacy too? No problem, they are still taking applications, just fulfill the requirements, spend 6-7 years in school earning little or no money and then pass a rigorous state board exam. It's so easy, you should have no problem looking "stoned" too, dufus.

Next time you need a script filled, feel free to use someone with no scuples or morals, I'm sure you'll be confident it will be accurate and high quality. Or choose someone who is concerned about patient safety and health, like a pharmacist with a conscience.

if i worked at a munitions dump, and someone came up to me for some of the munitions, should i give it to them, or check out if they are authorized to take possession? rules are rules, but if i was faced with choosing to follow "man's" rule or follow my conciense to follow God's rule, well guess what? it's God's way. I don't believe in abortion myself, and if I were an pharmicist, I would not even stock that particular rx. It's my pharmacy, and if I don't want to sell an item, I'm NOT. Government needs to regulate, but not dictate any one item and make me sell it. Professionally, I sell truck parts, should the government force me to sell car parts too? I think we all need to pray for our country as we are forced deeper and deeper into the pits of this satan controlled era. God Bless America and thank you for this forum.

What if it was an Rx for cyanide? If you knew that the person was going to give this to their friend or child or take it themself? Is there a moral obligation to prevent a murder? If you believe life begins at conception as is taught in most embryology and medical school classes what is your moral obligation? What if Man's law is wrong?
It is the pharmacist's choice.

It's very gratifying to see so many comments opposing the pharmacist's so-called right to refuse people the medications that their doctors prescribed for them.

Of course, if the evangelical Christian pharmacists continue to refuse to fill prescriptions, people will, as someone suggested, start getting their medicine from the internet or order it from Mexico. Hopefully, every young woman will keep a prescription of Plan B, gotten perhaps on the internet, on hand against the day when she may need it and be refused by the pharmacist.

I'm sure there will also be plenty of underground suppliers ready and willing to make money in this endeavor.

Just as there will no doubt be plenty of evangelical Christians ready and willing to blame the young woman for her own misfortune if perhaps the prescription she gets is not what it should be.

If a person, wishing to dodge the draft, for example, may invoke and enter a conscientious objection, then a pharmacist may conscientiously object to dispensing a drug. His conscience is none of anybody's business. If you don't like his refusing to hand out the drug, and you can't find another person to do it, it's easier for you to go someplace else. To punish him would be to interfere with and violate his conscience, and we've been told that Libs didn't wanna do dat.

Here it is, the REAL reason fundamentalist Christians oppose abortion:

Uncredible says: She has choice. She had choice. What did she do with it? Now she wants to violate somebody else's conscience by forcing him to give her what she wants?

If we just listen to what the anti-choice crowd says it is quite obvious their stance has little to do with protecting the unborn and EVERYTHING to do with a male dominated religion keeping power out of the hands of women.

Mr Inc. its more like joining the army and refusing to kill.

sorry, I forgot to put my name on the last comment

The reason is simply, while we believe women have the right to choose what is done with their body, we also believe that the baby has rights too. Why does one person have the right to have another innocent, living human killed?.....They don't.

Of course a person has right, and the "innocent fetus" is nowhere near innocent when it threatens its mother's life or health, including her mental health, and the health and security of her family. Then the fetus becomes a pursuer, a rodef, that she is permitted to kill to preserve her own life or to safeguard her family's well being.

Boris,
I apologize for the length.
Being as well-learned as you are (and I mean that genuinely), you probably know the six characteristics for life.

1) Cells
All living things are composed of one or more cells. Different types of cells have different "jobs" within the organism. Each life form begins from one cell, which then will split. These cells split, and so on. After this has happened several times, differentiation is undergone, when the cells change so that they are not the same thing anymore. Then they are used to begin to put together the final organism, some cells, for example, as the eyes, some as the heart, etc. The only arguable exception to this is viruses. They are not composed of cells, but are said to be "living."

2) Organization
Complex organization patterns are found in all living organisms. They arrange themselves on very small levels, grouping like things together. On larger levels, they become visible. This also has to do with differentiation, as the cells are organized in a manner that makes sense for the organism after they change to what they’ll be in the final organism.

3) Energy Use
All organisms use energy. The sum of the chemical energy they use is called metabolism. This energy is used to carry out everything they do. Autotrophs (plants) use energy from the sun for photosynthesis, to make their own ‘food’ (glucose). Heterotrophs (animals and humans) must ingest food for this purpose

4) Homeostasis
All organisms have stable internal conditions which must be maintained in order to remain alive. These include temperature, water content, heartbeat, and other such things. In a way, this has to do with energy use, because a certain level of energy must be kept within the body at all times. For this, obviously, humans must then ingest food on a regular basis. Not all conditions are for the body to maintain itself; though most are.

5) Growth
All organisms grow and change. Cells divide to form new, identical cells. Differentiation happens, as well, when cells mutate into other types of cells, making a more complex organism. Organisms growing, changing, and becoming more complex is called development. Single-celled organisms do grow as well, but they will only become slightly larger – this is nearly immeasurable

6) Reproduction
All organisms reproduce in order to continue the species' life. This is combining genetic information (in sexual reproduction) or splitting into two organisms (in asexual reproduction) in order to create another of the same species. In sexual reproduction, the new organism will have some characteristics from the mother, and some from father. It may look like either of them, or it may not. In asexual reproduction, the new organism is an exact copy of the first.
One must ask the question….Is a 4 year old who is not able to reproduce a human? How about a 2 year old? How about a 10 year old? What about a barren woman? The answer to all is emphatically yes. A baby cannot reproduce, but in time (more than likely) it will be able. So we cannot exclude a fetus because it cannot yet reproduce.

When one looks at these 6 characteristics, a fetus meets 5, and will in time meet the 6th.

So we know that it is alive. So, is it a human? Well, beginning very early in the pregnancy, it gradually develops physical characteristics of a human. A basic ultrasound shows us it is not an ant, dog, cat, dinosaur, bird, donkey, cow, horse, roach, frog, centipede, ape, or any other animal for that matter. It looks like a human, moves like a human, has a brain like a human, comes from another human, etc. It must be a human.

Therefore a fetus is a living, human being.

==If we just listen to what the anti-choice crowd says it is quite obvious their stance has little to do with protecting the unborn and EVERYTHING to do with a male dominated religion keeping power out of the hands of women. ==

You must be the propaganda minister for NOW cuz you got the PR down.

==the "innocent fetus" is nowhere near innocent when it threatens its mother's life or health, including her mental health, and the health and security of her family.==

You forgot "social life," or convenience which factors prominently in most of the abortions.

==Then the fetus becomes a pursuer, a rodef, that she is permitted to kill to preserve her own life or to safeguard her family's well being.==

Hardly ever the norm.

==A fetus is not a living human. ==

46 chromosomes equals "human." The unborn child grows independently of the woman, and growth begins upon conception. That's life.

When does a woman become pregnant? Conception? Birth? When the doctor says so? What?

Uncredible blurted: When does a woman become pregnant? Conception? Birth? When the doctor says so? What?

That is none of your business. Keep your Christian nose out of other people's affairs.

human being
–noun 
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.

The key word is, of course, "individual". Now, let's look at the definition of "individual".

in⋅di⋅vid⋅u⋅al
–noun
5. Biology.
a single organism capable of independent existence .

"Independent existence" is another key phrase. Here is the final definition:

or⋅gan⋅ism
–noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes .

As you can see a fetus, embryo, and zygote fit none of these descriptions. So if a fetus is neither an individual nor an organism, what can it be? Because it resides inside and uses the organ systems of the woman carrying it, it is assumed that it is part of the larger organism of the woman.

The issue of it having separate DNA is explained if the fetus is described not as an individual organism but as a graft inside of the mother. There are four main types of grafts, and because the fetus has a very similar genetic makeup to the mother, it can be described as a "semiautogenic graft" or a "semiallogenic graft".

An autogenic graft refers to when the donor and recipient are genetically identical, while an allogenic graft refers to when the donor and recipient are not genetically identical but within the same species. Because a fetus' DNA is half of the woman's it is perhaps more accurately described as "semiallogenic."

This graft is not automatically rejected for several reasons, mainly because of hormones released during pregnancy that weaken the rejection method of the immune system and causes the body to recognize this graft as part of itself. When the graft is finally rejected, birth or miscarriage follows.

It is a serious flaw to state that the fetus and woman are two separate entities, and that the fetus itself is a human being. Because it is unable to sustain independent life, and it uses the organ systems of the host woman, it is, physically and hormonally, part of the woman's body. Therefore any legislation passed to prevent her from having an abortion is essentially legislation passed to control a part of her body.

I owe a major part, if not all, of this post to this website.
Grasping the essence of the abortion issue

The two key issues to focus on are: the nature of a fetus, and the nature of individual rights.
The first issue to grasp is the difference between potential and actual. A fetus is not an actual human being, but is human tissue. A fetus is only a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. That a fetus is potential human being, does not make it an actual one. Once you grasp this point, you need to grasp a much more complex point — which is not self-evident — about the nature of rights.

The second issue to grasp is that rights only apply to actual human beings. Rights only apply to human beings; they apply to human beings because man survives by reason. Men do not survive — at least for long — like animals do in the jungle. Rather then hunting for food like an animal, man grows it. He builds houses to protect himself from hurricanes and storms. He creates clothing to keep warm. He discovers drugs to kill bacteria that may cause him harm. He manufactures refrigerators to keep his food fresh. This is why man has rights — and animals do not — to leave his mind free to think, and his body free to act on that thinking. As a fetus does not use reason to survive; but, rather it survives on the sustenance provided by the body of its' host, a fetus has no rights, and no need for rights. A fetus has no right to life, liberty, property.

The key issue in this context is that a fetus has no right to be inside the body of another human being, because no such right exists. Yet, this is the only kind of 'right' it requires to exist. To grant the fetus such a right, would make its host — the pregnant mother — a slave. Slavery is not a right.
This in essence is the case for a woman's moral right to abortion: a fetus is not an actual human being, but is only human tissue inside the body of an actual human being. Rights only apply to actual human beings (whether a new born child, or a hundred year old grandfather, or a pregnant woman), as they require freedom to act by the use of their mind.

It is fascinating, in the same way that a horrible car crash attracts attention, to read the positions of the fundamentalist/conservative/literalistic/followers-of-ancient-traditions* here.

The hatred towards women is just as strong as the hatred towards gays.

Both can only be based on the fear that when women and gays have full human rights, the oppressors will no longer be able to abuse them.

Sad.

Personally, I am opposed to abortion. Of course, as a homosexual and a man, I have absolutely no standing. Therefor, I advocate letting the woman confronted with a pregnancy choose for herself what is best. How can I know? I can't.

One of the most important aspects of this debate which the fundamentalist, conservative, literalistic and followers-of-ancient-traditions Christians overlook is that their control over government may not be permanent. Once you replace neutral, secular government rule with theocratic rule, there is always the chance that your particular brand of hatred will be replaced by another sect whose beliefs are antithetical to yours. I have never once been able to get that through the heads of these fundamentalist, conservative, literalistic and followers-of-ancient-traditions, it seems as though they really think they will have the permanent majority.

Hmm, seems a certain political party thought that until recently, theym too would rule forever.

If these people really cared about life and not just about oppressing women, they would be doing all they could to provide comprehensive sex education, free and effective contraception, social structures which made it possible for a woman who does become pregnant unexpectedly to either easily place the child in a home in which the child is wanted or to give her the resources to keep and raise the child without driving both into abject poverty.

Don't see any of those folks arguing for even one of those here. Instead, it is hatred of women from beginning to end.

*One of the nastiest aspects of dealing with this prohibitive mindset is that the moment you refer to one as 'fundamentalist', he insists he is no such thing, rather a 'literalistic' follower. Or he is truly liberal, just a follower-of-ancient-traditions. Or a simple, conservative. No doubt I've missed on or the other, but did my best with this designation.