Sunday, November 01, 2009

A Small Victory for Consumers

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an en banc hearing on Stormans v. Selecky, according to this article from Religion Clause Blogspot. This is the case ruling on whether or not a law passed requiring pharmacists to hand out prescribed medications regardless of whether it ran in controversion to their religious beliefs was kosher.

The Court basically denied an en banc rehearing, but did authorize a rehearing by the panel, which reached the same conclusion it did before (in a nutshell - the law is not unlawful, nor could any reasonable person believe it to be).

The allegedly aggrieved pharmacists' argument is that by forcing them to hand out prescriptions they disagree with (i.e. the morning after pill), then the State is forcing them to violate their religious principles. This, as I've mentioned before, is a load of crap. The state isn't forcing these pharmacists to do anything. Rather, the state is giving them a quid pro quo - you want the license to dispence phamaceuticals and make the copious amounts of money associated therewith, then you agree to obey the laws of the state and follow the requirements set out for you. If you don't want to do what the state (who dispenses the licenses) asks, then you don't have to do it, but you will not be able to dispense drugs.

Again, the state isn't forcing the pharmacists to do anything. They knew when they got involved in the pharmaceutical business what that business would entail (the Birth Control pill, condoms, and other prophylactic devices were available long before the current crop of pharmacists got their start), and they knew that their job included dispencing said items. Just because a new form of birth control doesn't jibe with what they decide is ok does not make it all right for them to ignore what is required of their job.

You don't like it, do something else. Period.

14 comments:

nuje said...

Yay, another small victory for the culture of death.

DB said...

Lol, culture of death. Such a brilliant phrase spoken with love completely changes my mind on the subject without the need for a thoughtful rebuttal or well-reasoned argument against this decision. Good job.

nuje said...

I would like to begin by quoting one of the world’s most famous writings. Since I am Catholic and not a part of the Christian right, which is so arrogantly mock on this blog, I do not have verses from the Old and New Testaments memorized. So, I would like to quote the second most famous document of all time: The Declaration of Independence. I hope to make an argument that the unborn are protected by the Declaration of Independence just like you and I are ... and were before we broke the womb of our mothers'. I write this out of love. Love for life and love for those who deny or are indifferent to the horror of abortion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

I would like you to notice that it does not say: All men are born equal.

...that they are endowed by their Creator...

Creator. This emphasizes that the founding fathers* accepted and believed in some sort of Creator. They even capitalized the C which demonstrates that they did not consider the mother or father the Creator. Now, whether or not you or I believe this idea is besides the point. The country, our laws** and our society was founded on these principles. Whether you or I believe that life begins at conception or in the third trimester or at birth or two years after birth also does not matter. “Creation” of human beings happens at conception. When a sperm fertilizes an egg the creation exists. If all men are “created” equal, then I would argue that the founding fathers were talking about the unborn as well. I would also contend that the murder of this creation, no matter how young or old it is, upsets its Creator.

...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

1. Life. Please note that they listed Life first. They sought to protect life ... the creation.

2. Liberty. They aspired that the Creator’s creation be treated justly. Murder does not fall in the category of liberty.

3. The pursuit of Happiness.*** If one chooses to trounce upon another creation’s self-evident and unalienable rights so that they can continue pursuing happiness then they have ignored the declaration of the rights to Life and Liberty, therefore making the pursuit of Happiness obsolete.

*Not all, but the majority of the founding fathers believed this to be self-evident.

**I hate to mentions law because we all know that some laws have no moral standing. Slavery, segregation, and abortion all prove this point.

***Happiness is the unalienable right that the “culture of death” focuses on. If it feels good, do it. If it doesn’t feel good, get rid of it.

DB said...

I hope to make an argument that the unborn are protected by the Declaration of Independence

Well, the Declaration of Independence doesn't "protect" anything as it is merely a declaration and not a governing document, but for the sake of debate, I will ignore such fallacy and argue against your case.

I am not a lawyer, but as I said, the Declaration of Independence was a declaration establishing our independence as a series of colonies, a people, and eventually a nation and is therefore not a governing document of this land. It is simply, though importantly, a founding document. Our protections as a people lie directly in our Constitution. We all love the DoI, but honestly, let us not confuse the purpose of these documents. But as you brought of the DoI, wouldn't we agree that the Founders were more concerned about the aggression against "life" coming from a nation's (Great Britain) actions against individuals (Colonialists) and were not thinking in the sense of one's personal right to choose how they manage their own life. Hence the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain...anyways, let's continue.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

Well, except non-whites, if you want to put the Founders on a pedestal of morality. Perhaps abortion should be legal for non-whites? That would certainly be appealing to the far-right! We all know the Founders really didn't mean "all" men in the very literal sense. Hell, it didn't even include many whites who didn't own property! Should I bring up women who were clearly not "equal" either, but the Founders never mentioned women, right?

...that they are endowed by their Creator...

Need we discuss how important this concept was that not once was any supernatural being mentioned in any form whatsoever in the governing document of our land that established the government that protects rights...the Constitution? And, pointless to even mention, but it wasn't even in the first draft of the DoI in the first place. Surely such a profound statement couldn't have been an after thought, right? Furthermore, let us not forget not all of our Founders were Christian, at least not anything the far-right would deem acceptable by today's judgmental standards.

Just like today, everyone has their own interpretation on life. You have your views, I have mine. Your view impedes on my rights. Mine doesn't impede on yours in the least. What side do we error on? Mine or yours? Nothing is lost by erroring on yours, but my rights are lost when we error on mine. Make sense?

DB said...

...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Do you feel that these rights are unalienable to all mankind (which is what is implied by the Creator's very specific endowment)? Or just people happened to be born on US soil or to US Citizen parents? How about people of other countries? Illegal immigrants? Should people from other nations not be allowed to pursue such god-given rights (as claimed by our Founders) wherever they choose, including the country that protects such rights without government interference? I assume you have a very liberal view of immigration based on your staunch advocacy of a literal, yet wildly liberal interpretation in the Declaration of Independence.

Moving on. Do you honestly think the Founders were intending "life" as some sort of protection for sperm and eggs at conception? The most we can tell from the Founders writings is this is not so. Not even close, even if we choose (as many do) to completely bastardize their views to serve ones own purpose. This was an external proclamation declaring our independence from a tyrant, not an internal one dictating rights of the unborn. And it has never been implied as such, except by radical interpretations of the founding documents.

As you can tell by the Founders writings (including the Constitution-the governing document we discussed earlier), they believed that each individual had the right and responsibility to make major life decisions on their own (life) without obstruction from any governing body (liberty) and that "life" could not be taken away without due process (yes, a stipulation on their view on life considering they supported, as with many "pro-lifers", the death penalty and plausibly torture). For example, an individual liberty they expressed was the freedom of religion, but did not imply which religion, if any, one had to choose. They left that up to the individual. This speaks to that liberty they mentioned. And also the pursuit of happiness is the exact idea of individual responsibility that they wanted to convey. You don't have the right of happiness, but the right to pursue happiness how you as an individual see fit. Using my previous example, they empowered the people to make decisions on their own, between them and their own god and their own conscience. They empowered the people with liberty to live as they please in the pursuit of happiness. All three rights equal freedom, and freedom doesn't exist without the others.

I have a hard time even speaking towards the "feel good" pursuit of happiness as you poorly defined others of having. It is merely an 'outside looking in' view of other people's views. It is a view that positions one to see people with different views enjoying their lives and think it is out of some selfish, immoral act (sin) that they are partaking in. It is an envious and negative approach to life. It is like judging the happiness of others, not out of a jealous desire to partake, but out of the desire to force ones views on others. Evangelicals typically operate by this MO, not Catholics. I don't view happiness so pitifully and negatively, I see happiness in a more positive, self-fulfilling light. I believe it allows me, and everyone else in the country, to pursue my own passions without being forcibly subjected to another persons views, and especially not the governments. We are able to pursue happiness so long as it does not infringe on the rights of other to pursue their own. You have a warped view of how other perceive happiness.

DB said...

Regarding the post at hand, should a Jehovah Witness who is a doctor be allowed to refuse you a life saving blood transfusion based on a radical interpretation of their religious views? Also, where do you stand on abortions in extreme cases of violent rape or incest?

(Steve...it appears I am back lol)

nuje said...

Let me clarify, the ideals of the Declaration of Independence protect the unborn. Those ideals also protected women, nonwhites, etc. Of course it took a lot of fights and several amendments to get people to start living up to those ideals.

“wouldn't we agree that the Founders were more concerned about the aggression against "life" coming from a nation's (Great Britain) actions against individuals (Colonialists)” Yes, they would have been concerned about all the Colonialists: Men, children, women, ... even the pregnant women and their unborn children.

Of course not all of the founders believed in a Creator. Maybe you missed the footnote or the footnote wasn’t clear in my last comment: (*Not all, but the majority of the founding fathers believed this to be self-evident.) Of course a lot of the founders were were just like you and me, not perfect. But, the ideals of the founders, as stated in the DoL, were nearly perfect.

Your view impedes on the rights of the 4,000+, unborn, U.S. Americans who were sucked from their mother today.

If you don’t believe that life begins in the womb you will never understand any of my points. If you do believe that life begins in the womb, and you still approve of abortion then I feel such sorrow for you.

nuje said...

I only read one of your posts before I posted my last comment. I have only read a little of your last few comments and I can see that you have a tough time debating without sarcasm. It's quite annoying. You have assumed many things about me which shows ignorance. I think I'll quit wasting my time.

Take care

Steve said...

Nuje, your argument seems to take some liberties with position - you claim that the "ideals of the Declaration of Independence protect the unborn," yet you provide no contemporaneous documents demonstrating that the founders did, in fact, believe what you seem to believe (i.e. that "creation" = conception). I can point to this link that is a discussion on the book "When Abortion was a Crime" by Leslie Reagan, which documents the history of abortion in the United States and which demonstrates that at the time of the founders, abortion was tacitly approved of, if not outright supported by the country at the time of the founding. This suggests that your interpretation of the language of the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson, by the way, has no record of opposing abortion, rather the one document I've found seems to demonstrate that he understood abortion to be a practical consideration among the native americans of the country). In a nutshell, it appears that the founders considered "Life" to begin at the "quickening," a position discussed in the aforementioned book, and likewise supported by Blackstone. Reagan’s book further discusses the shift in attitude on the topic of abortion not necessarily stemming from a national embrace of some “culture of life,” but rather of a concern that minorities might soon outnumber whites – Horatio Storer argued in opposition to abortion in part to make sure that the West was “filled by our own children,” and not “aliens,” a position incorporated by Tom Delay just 2 years ago.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church itself has been inconsistent with its classification of how wrong abortion is. This is not to say that the church ever condoned abortion, but as St. Bede points out, "A mother who kills her child before the fortieth day shall do penance for one year. If it is after the child has become alive, [she shall do penance] as a murderess. But it makes a great difference whether a poor woman does it on account of the difficulty of supporting [the child] or a harlot for the sake of concealing her wickedness." (id). St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas seemed to support the position that life did not begin until well after conception: "In the fifth century a.d., St. Augustine expressed the mainstream view that early abortion required penance only for sexual sin. Eight centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas agreed, saying abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was "ensouled," and ensoulment, he was sure, occurred well after conception." (id).

Steve said...

Now, as far as the topic of this post is concerned, and sarcastic dismissal of the Court's position that started this discussion(or mine, which given the tone of your comments over the past several months could well be the case), the issue at hand was birth control - contraception. As you may recall, the previous time I posted on this topic (where you glibly reported that I was against God), Red Hot Mamma made it clear that this is not an abortifacient. It is birth control. You are correct that birth control runs contrary to the Catholic Church's position, which again has changed over time (now accepting the rhythm method as acceptable birth control, a change that occurred over the past century). The church's official position is that "[c]ontraception is 'any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods." (id). Note that the church's position includes natural and artificial methods. Seemingly, this would include the rhythm method as well. Now, you have professed yourself to be a Catholic, so is it then safe to presume that your opposition to methods to prevent pregnancies includes opposition to these forms of birth control as well? Or does it only extend to Plan B? If your wife used birth control in violation of the Church's doctrine, would you still engage in intercourse, or would you abstain because it is against God?

You state that you feel sorrow for an individual who believes that life begins at conception yet still respects a woman’s right to choose. How would you respond to the person who is decidedly pro-life yet still procures an abortion? Does your sympathy extend to her? How about the man who is pro-life yet engages in premarital sex (a sin by the Catholic church), who impregnates his girlfriend, who then gets an abortion? Does your sympathy extend to him? To the rape victim? To the daughter of a molesting father? What would you say to the woman who God has placed in an ectopic pregnancy – one that is guaranteed to fail and likely to kill her as well if carried to term? “Nice knowing you?” Or would your sympathy extend to her as well? Does your ire for the “culture of death” extend to invasions of foreign nations, based upon false premises, that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? Does it extend to capital punishment?

While I am pro-choice, I am by no means a proponent of abortion, and would give serious consideration to divorcing my wife were I to find that she procured an abortion of my child, regardless of stage of gestation. That, however, is my position based on my life’s facts and my situation. I am fortunate enough to recognize, as St. Bede did, that everybody has a different fact pattern in their life, and it is not for me to determine whether or not their belief system or their life should be dictated by what I believe when it comes to a moral, personal choice such as this.

nuje said...

your argument seems to take some liberties with position - you claim that the "ideals of the Declaration of Independence protect the unborn

You have to remember, I am not as educated as you. Therefore, not as articulate. Because I fail to convince you or fail to prove any points it does not mean my position is wrong, it only means that I am not a good communicator.

Agreed, the DoL thing was just an attempt. The argument has a lot of holes in it. You have totally proven that our country, society, and its laws were as morally corrupt then as they are now. I completely agree with you.

the Catholic Church itself has been inconsistent with its classification and "In the fifth century a.d., St. Augustine expressed the mainstream view that early abortion required penance only for sexual sin. Eight centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas agreed, saying abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was "ensouled," and ensoulment, he was sure, occurred well after conception." (id).”

Yes, at this time the Catholic Church also believed the sun orbited the earth. No one is claiming that the Catholic Chuch is perfect. St. Thomas Aquinas believed abortion to be gravely sinful even before “ensoulment.” St. Augustine: “in common with most other ecclesiastical writers of his period, vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion. Procreation was one of the goods of marriage; abortion figured as a means, along with drugs which cause sterility, of frustrating this good. It lay along a continuum which included infanticide as an instance of ‘lustful cruelty’ or ‘cruel lust.’ Augustine called the use of means to avoid the birth of a child an ‘evil work:’ a reference to either abortion or contraception or both.” -Augustine Through The Ages: An Encyclopedia by John C. Bauerschmidt.

where you glibly reported that I was against God

1. I am guilty of being an arrogant, argumentative, insulting blog commentator as well. 2. I wasn’t being glib. 3. My exact comment was “By being so decidedly pro-choice you are unfortunately on the right side of the law and probably on the right side of all the cool kids in your law classes. But, if there is a god in heaven then you are also most certainly on the wrong side of Him.” That is true. But if you claim to not be pro-life then I’ll have to recant that statement. The only reason I even brought up a reference to god is because you had previously mentioned trips to a church. Now, when someone claims to go to church and they get drunk from time to time, or yell at their wife, or periodically give someone the finger in traffic, their cred as a believer is a little tarnished (none of us is perfect). But, when a person claims to go to church and can’t get behind the idea that murder is wrong, whether it is the death penalty, euthanasia, etc. then they seem to be missing the point of the Gospel.

Since you like to quote folks who are supposed to be on my side of the debate, maybe you can take the time to read some quotes from Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood (the nations #1 abortion provider). Which, by the way, continues to award their top employees with the “Maggie Award.”

“or would you abstain because it is against God?”

Yes.

Just like DB, your questions assume a lot. But, for the sake of our next card game I’ll answer yours.

How would you respond to the person who is decidedly pro-life yet still procures an abortion? Does your sympathy extend to her?

Yes.

How about the man who is pro-life yet engages in premarital sex (a sin by the Catholic church), who impregnates his girlfriend, who then gets an abortion? Does your sympathy extend to him?

Yes.

nuje said...

To the rape victim? To the daughter of a molesting father?

Yes. If a woman is raped why would anyone condone murder of the baby. What did the baby do to her? Yes. If a daughter is raped, what did the baby do to her? Those are horrible circumstances but they are in the very small minority of abortion cases.

What would you say to the woman who God has placed in an ectopic pregnancy – one that is guaranteed to fail and likely to kill her as well if carried to term? “Nice knowing you?” Or would your sympathy extend to her as well?

Yes. That’s a good point. I’m not a doctor. The overwhelming number of abortions daily are by healthy women who feel they have no choice due to family, financial or other social problems. A very good deal of those are having their second or third or 10th abortion. The pro-life movement supports women who need help with money, shelter, counseling, adoption etc etc etc.

who God has placed in an ectopic pregnancy

I have a problem with this point of yours. Obviously, I’m not nearly articulate enough to deal with such a huge statement. You might as well ask the question, “why did God allow Jesus and Mary to suffer?” C.S. Lewis wrote about ideas like this in his book “The Problem with Pain.” Peter Kreeft is another philosopher you can refer to if you’re interested.

Does your ire for the “culture of death” extend to invasions of foreign nations, based upon false premises

That is a good point, completely off topic. Are you upset over the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq or both?

Does it extend to capital punishment?

Yes. Not a fan of it.

While I am pro-choice, I am by no means a proponent of abortion ... St. Bede did, that everybody has a different fact pattern in their life, and it is not for me to determine whether or not their belief system or their life should be dictated by what I believe when it comes to a moral, personal choice such as this.

I suppose I can’t recant my statement from earlier... What if I said, “while I am antislavery I’m not a proponent of slavery. It’s not for me to determine whether or not slave owners be dictated by what I believe when it comes to a moral, personal choice such as slavery?”

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill," summarized the issue this way: Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8

nuje said...

"But if you claim to not be pro-life"

Obviously I meant pro-choice.

Cassie said...

I think it is wrong to claim someone is "missing the point" because they disagree with you. You have strong beliefs but so do I and I could say that you are "missing the point" by believing that birth control (I am NOT including abortion as a method of birth control) is wrong. I almost died three times giving birth-no I am not exaggerating. Who are you to decide that I should continue to reproduce (and contribute to overpopulation)and most likely leave my children motherless. To me that is selfish and I do not believe that God wants that. So, you may think that I am "missing the point" by being pro-choice and being Christian but I can certainly say the same about you. Therefore, we must agree to disagree. I think it is fine to disagree but not to be personally critical of someone and basically call them a hypocrite because their beliefs are different than mine. I respect everyones beliefs regardless of how they differ from mine.