Quote# 79068

NAMPA -- A new Idaho law enacted in 2010 is designed to protect medical professionals by allowing them to refuse health care services that conflict with their religious, moral or ethical principles.

But Planned Parenthood says a Nampa pharmacist acted in the wrong and was not protected by the law when she refused to fill a prescription. [...]

The prescription at the center of this is methergine. It’s used to prevent bleeding after childbirth or after an abortion.

In November, a Planned Parenthood nurse called this Nampa Walgreen's for a methergine prescription.

According to Planned Parenthood, the Walgreen's pharmacist asked if their patient had an abortion.

The nurse says she cited federal patient privacy laws and refused to answer.

"The pharmacist said, 'Well, if you're not going to tell me that and she had an abortion, I'm not going to fill this prescription.' And then our practitioner said, 'Why don't you tell me another pharmacy that I can call or another pharmacist that can dispense this medication for my patient?' And the pharmacist hung up on her," said Kristen Glundberg-Prosser of the Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest.

Planned Parenthood called the pharmacist's actions dangerous.

Nampa Walgreens pharmacist, KTVB Idaho News 88 Comments [1/28/2011 4:48:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 105

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 4 | bottom


Dude, i think you are fucked. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what stock holders want to see in the news.

1/28/2011 8:36:29 AM


A new Idaho law enacted in 2010 is designed to protect medical professionals by allowing them to refuse health care services that conflict with their religious, moral or ethical principles.

Too bad fundies are the only ones that would abuse this because I'd love to see them get a taste of their own medicine...only to have the doctor refuse to give them the rest of it.

1/28/2011 9:53:01 AM

What if its against my ethical principles to treat patients? Then what huh?

1/28/2011 10:12:47 AM

Greater Good

What the fuck, Idaho? How'd an insane law like that get passed, and how long before someone dies as a result? Hopefully this will come crashing down in flames soon, but sadly not before a body count.

1/28/2011 10:22:14 AM



"Dude, i think you are fucked. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what stock holders want to see in the news."

It's cases like this which essentially destroys the notion of 'there's no such thing as bad publicity'. Said stockholders and trustees of that particular medical establishment would rather sacrifice that pharmacist (and hire another - preferably an Atheist, or at least a non-fundie Christian) than risk any future business. Theirs isn't the only hospital out there, after all. And such establishments can't afford to let fundie 'pride' get in the way of profits, during these financially fragile times.

Whoever said pharmacist is, I think you'll find that your superiors worship Mammon more than your so-called 'God'. 'Faith' doesn't pay the bills/pay the staff, provide said stockholders with the returns on their investment.

PROTIP: Everyone is just one paycheque away from homelessness. Anyone is expendable. Think on that, whoever you are, said pharmacist.

Hopefully soon to be ex-pharmacist.


Nature abhors a vacuum. And there's someone else who'll more than readily - certainly gladly - fill that particular employmental vacuum.

Nobody can afford to be 'proud' these days. Even the 'moral high ground' won't provide you with a roof over your head.

1/28/2011 10:28:35 AM


I'd have fired the pharmacist on the spot if I'd been their boss.

1/28/2011 10:35:50 AM

If your religion interferes with you fulfilling all of the requirements of your job, either get a new religion or get a new job. Why has the state sanctioned the prejudices of the religious?

1/28/2011 10:38:45 AM


I do not agree with abortion, I despise planned parenthood. however, the goal at this point is to save the mother's life. The pharmacist has no real religious reason to NOT fill the prescription except stupidity. As a highly devout Catholic, I can state with 100 percent certainty, the Church would provide post abortive, compassionate care, including prevention of bleeding, surgery if necessary, iv fluids or transfusion in case of shock. Two wrongs do not make a right

1/28/2011 10:39:01 AM

That person never aparently heard of PROFESIONAL SECRET!!

1/28/2011 10:47:05 AM


Honor killing, the oblique way.

Fucking theocratic laws...This is why civilized societies don't have them.

1/28/2011 10:47:31 AM


I'm waiting for the first Christian Scientist pharmacist.

1/28/2011 10:59:32 AM


Welcome to the The Christian Taliban run USA! Enjoy your moral stay!

1/28/2011 11:33:39 AM


"If you did something I don't agree with, YOU CAN GO DIE, because I'm pro-life."

1/28/2011 11:51:55 AM


When South Dakota imposed a statewide ban on abortion, the Indian reservations opened abortion clinics. If this pharmacy won't provide medication, others will; and if they're smart they'll advertise that fact. Kiss your business good-bye, fundie.

1/28/2011 12:17:52 PM


I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

That's an excerpt from the actual Hippocratic Oath, people. Read the words. Saying "Hippocratic Oath" here, is embarrassingingly ignorant; that pharmacist is closer to the letter of the oath than the organisation complaining about her was.

This pharmacist has no obligation to a random stranger telephoning her.
Many commentators here believe her refusal to dispense the medicine was morally wrong, whereas she is of the opposite opinion. Opinions differ, and I have no problem with people spending as much time as they want trying to convert each other to their point of view. But the idea that the state should intervene to impose the viewpoint of either side is just plain dumb.
As a principle it sucks. For example, imagine what Saudi Arabia would do in accordance with that principle. Any Doctor that DID treat a menstuating woman would no longer be allowed to practice medicine.
It's stupid in principle, and also stupid in practice.
As is, if someone won't do a job for whatever reason (the maid doesn't do windows, for example), its only a minor problem. You can find someone else who'll do so. If instead you fired, deregistered or jailed the pharmacist, you'd only make a martyr of her. Equally you're running the risk if the State intervenes that you might get the exact opposite of what you want.
Individuals will always determine where the line they will not cross is drawn, as Thoreau, Ghandi, Mandela et al have so nobly shown. In each of these cases the State proposed to compel individuals against their consciences. In each case it was wrong.
Feel free to think that the woman was wrong to decide as she did, but to suggest she should lose the right to do so is far worse.

1/28/2011 12:38:13 PM


Looks like a pharmacist taking the law into his/her own hands. It is criminal to fail to provide a service that would prevent a fellow citizen from death, or danger of death. That is the law in France, and it applies to all situations, so that there is no possibility of asking questions. That pharmacist should be struck off/disbarred and prevented ever from pracising again. And if the client died, then the pharmacist should be held responsible for aggravated manslaughter. A term in jail might make him.her more human. And fuck his/her religion. Religion is not above the law. If it ever were, then we would be back to burning people alive again.

As an afterthought, can a law like this, based on religious grounds, be in accord with the US constitution, and in particular its First Amendment?

1/28/2011 12:51:06 PM


@catholicgirl and John_in_Oz: what if the woman had had a miscarriage and the doctor at Planned Parenthood wanted her to have the methergine because she's bleeding? It's not any of the pharmacist's business to ask WHY she needed the drug. Pharmacists can't prescribe drugs. Only dispense drugs. In the opinion of the doctor, the woman needed the drug. The pharmacist was wrong. Period.

Again, John_in_Oz: a pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions that in the opinion of the prescribing caregiven need to be given. The pharmacist may check for possible drug interactions with other drugs the patient is taking, drug allergies, etc. He/she should NOT decide the patient doesn't need the drug. And if a pharmacist won't do their job, no matter what their religious beliefs, they should be replaced.

As a nurse, I nearly had a patient IN THE HOSPITAL nearly die of a miscarriage because a pharmacist pulled this crap on me. We had to call the nursing supervisor and the pharmacy director to get the medication needed and the patient ended up in ICU nearly dead instead of more likely being able to go home the next day.

If your religious beliefs go against actions your job requires, find a new job.

Oh, and by the way: doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, not pharmacists.

1/28/2011 1:43:26 PM


So you have this car accident, and a Medical Doctor drives right by because if he renders aid and anything goes wrong, his fault or not, the bejesus might get sued out of him.

This happens in the good old US of A all the time.

There is a lot that is fucked up about modern society. I believe that doing anything strictly in the name of the colossal scam that is religion is brainless. The traditionally screwed-up but conformist pharmacist "feels" (maybe thinks) differently about it. I have to side with John-In-Oz on this one, reluctantly.

It is, or should be however, the employer's prerogative to decide that they don't want such a finicky person in their employ. As for the rest of us, ask up front and vote with your feet.

1/28/2011 1:44:15 PM


Fire the lady. Medicine is a scientific discipline...there is no room for those like her.

1/28/2011 1:52:52 PM


The whore may have had an abortion, therefore, she deserves to bleed to death.

Now let's sing about Christian Compassion, my children.


1/28/2011 2:07:59 PM


@John et. al.:

The pharmacist here is being asked to provide a drug to prevent or stop bleeding - that's all. (S)he's not being asked to dispense an abortificant or even contraception. As such, it doesn't matter WHY the person in question is bleeding; just that she is and needs the bleeding stopped. Why the patient is bleeding is not really the business of the pharmacist.

In sum, refusing contraception is one thing - still annoying, but nobody dies. Refusing a coagulant is much more serious. That a person's beliefs would interfere with their job to such a degree that they would refuse a bleeding person help based simply on their own personal assumptions as to why that person is bleeding is what makes this quote heinous.

1/28/2011 2:20:08 PM


THIS is why we keep STATE and CHURCH separate.

1/28/2011 2:29:23 PM


I work at a health food store where they sell all kinds of things I don't believe in/accept as valid science (flower essences, homeopathics etc.), yet I never refuse to sell them to people who want them.

Suck it up and do your damn job.If you don't like it, get another job somewhere else.

1/28/2011 3:08:42 PM


Fundies like claiming that Liberals murder outside the womb. If she dies, then I blame fundies that refuse to help.

1/28/2011 3:14:43 PM

The Truth

Ezekiel 9:5-7 (New King James Version)

5 To the others He said in my hearing, “Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity. 6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary.” So they began with the elders who were before the temple. 7 Then He said to them, “Defile the temple, and fill the courts with the slain. Go out!” And they went out and killed in the city.

Isaiah 13:15-18 (New King James Version)

15 Everyone who is found will be thrust through,
And everyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
16 Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
Their houses will be plundered
And their wives ravished.
17 “ Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them,
Who will not regard silver;
And as for gold, they will not delight in it.
18 Also their bows will dash the young men to pieces,
And they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb;
Their eye will not spare children.

1/28/2011 3:27:01 PM

1 2 3 4 | top: comments page