Well Toto I guess we're not in Kansas anymore

missjo · Post by **missjo** » Wed May 16, 2012 12:41 pm

& thank fuck for that!!
What a bunch of misogynistic whack job Assholes they have in charge there!!
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/15/kansas/

Kansas Governor Signs Bill Allowing Pharmacists And Doctors To Deny Women Birth Control
A bill that allows pharmacists and doctors to deny women access to contraception has been signed into law by Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. This new law is just one of many bills that the Republican governor has signed since he came into office. He has recently signed legislation that pressures abortion clinics with new regulations, legislation that imposes long waiting times to get an abortion, and legislation that bans insurance companies from covering abortion procedures.

This new bill, known as the Heath Care Rights of Conscience Act and sponsored by GOP state Rep. Lance Kinzer, was signed into law on Monday, and according to The Kansas City Star:

“The new law would bar anyone from being required to prescribe or administer a drug they “reasonably believe” might result in the termination of a pregnancy,” and could “open the door for a pharmacist to refuse a request for something like the “morning-after” pill.”
Basically, any woman in Kansas could walk into a pharmacy to pick up a birth control prescription and be denied her medication by the pharmacist. All the pharmacists needs to do is claim to be acting on his or her religious convictions. And what’s worse, the pharmacist doesn’t have to refer the prescription to another pharmacy. Likewise, doctors also can deny women contraception and use religious liberty to get away with it. Even a woman who becomes pregnant through rape could be denied access to birth control.

This new law is just one more step toward a complete ban on abortion and contraception in the state of Kansas. It gives doctors and pharmacists the right to tell women what medication they can or cannot use. To give a pill pusher the legal right to deny a patient the medication prescribed by their doctor is a total violation of privacy and a major government intrusion. And giving doctors the right to dictate the reproductive choices of women is also an egregious violation by big government. This law will lead to an avalanche of costly lawsuits against doctors and pharmacies and is a threat to the health of women across the state.

Kansas seems to be ground zero for the Republican war on women this year. There is currently a bill that is stalled in the Senate that among other thing would levy a tax on abortion, severely limit third trimester abortions, and require doctors to falsely link abortion to breast cancer. If this bill were to pass the Senate and get signed by Brownback, as he has promised to do, it would be by far the most dangerous anti-abortion law in the nation. Women in Kansas may not have much time left to control their reproductive choices, because if the GOP has their way, women will be powerless to make their own health decisions.

I think he's been taking lessons on women's rights from the Taliban

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed May 16, 2012 1:29 pm

Remsmber Missjo...republicans want less goverment in people's lives.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed May 16, 2012 1:40 pm

Here's an idea. If a pharmacist or doctor does not provide you with the services you like, maybe, just maybe, you could.......... FIRE THEIR FUKKING ASS!!!!! Kinda like what Mitt was talking about a few months back. This law doesn't stop anyone from getting anything. It just offers providers a choice to provide or not provide services.

People have rights. This is a law respecting the right of a doctor or pharmacist to not do something they don't want to do. When the state passes a law making birf control illegal, get back to me. Till then, just STFU.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed May 16, 2012 1:44 pm

I think you're a bit hysterical here, missjo.

The new law would bar anyone from being required to prescribe or administer a drug they “reasonably believe” might result in the termination of a pregnancy,” and could “open the door for...

... could open the door for... OMG OMG!!!

Missjo, can you provide a reasonable argument for why a pharmacist must be required by law to participate in the killing of a fetus?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed May 16, 2012 1:51 pm

Stupid "science".

The Bible has all the answers you'll ever need.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed May 16, 2012 2:25 pm

It's pretty easy for most people to find a different pharmacy. It takes quite a bit more effort to switch doctors.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed May 16, 2012 2:40 pm

Jsc810 wrote:It may be easy if you live in a city. Not so easy if you live in a small town.

Birth control?

Not for you little girl...

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Wed May 16, 2012 2:43 pm

suck more dick. take it in the ass.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed May 16, 2012 2:45 pm

Sirfindafold wrote:suck more dick. take it in the ass.

Speaking from experience?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed May 16, 2012 2:49 pm

Mikey wrote:Speaking from experience?

Oh burn.

Sin,
KC

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed May 16, 2012 4:49 pm

Jsc810 wrote:It may be easy if you live in a city. Not so easy if you live in a small town. A better idea is for pharmacists who have a problem performing their job to find another line of work.

In any event, this is just more stupid bullshit from Republicans, another shot fired in the War on Women.

More bullshit.

Birth control pills can be had through interwebs purchase.

It all comes down to "choice", right chip. Atleast that's why pro-abortion folks insist on being called pro-choice.

Why are you selective about who gets to make choices.

As for your very ridiculous argument about whack jobs wanting to withhold anti-biotics, well sure, I guess they could. Of course they wouldn't last 5 minutes as pharmacists seeing as they wouldn't sell anything. Could you perhaps come up with an argument that makes some sort of real world sense?

Lets take the argument a step further. Let's say you are Dr Chip OBGYN. You are strongly uhhhh, anti-choice, to use one of your side's terms. You work in East bumfuck, KS (pretty much all of KS). A patient comes in and demands an abortion.

Should you be required to perform it?

You are the only qualified MD within 100 miles that can do it.

Well, Mr fukkin' choice?

If not, why? Is it not a similar situation?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed May 16, 2012 5:31 pm

suckaholic,

Just curious, are you equating birth control pills with abortion?

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Wed May 16, 2012 5:48 pm

I was just wondering what the thread title had to do with the actual topic, other than being missjo's only frame of reference of Kansas?

Well unwanted fetus........I guess we are in Kansas

Follow the yellow brick road and ask for some wit.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed May 16, 2012 6:01 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:suckaholic,

Just curious, are you equating birth control pills with abortion?

I thought they were antibiotics.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed May 16, 2012 6:18 pm

Suckaholic;
Order through the interwebs?

Look up the effectivity window of the ”Plan B” pill & see how stupid you look.

A phamacist's job is to dispense medication prescribed by a licensed physician. If they can't do that they should lose their license.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed May 16, 2012 6:43 pm

Jsc810 wrote:Here's an idea. How about they just give a person the medicine that was prescribed to them by a physician, and stay out of other people's health care decisions.

Presumably these people are running a business so it doesn't make much sense to me to turn customers away but, if they want to run a thumper friendly operation, it should be their choice.

You are pro-choice....right?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed May 16, 2012 7:06 pm

mvscal wrote:Presumably these people are running a business so it doesn't make much sense to me to turn customers away but, if they want to run a thumper friendly operation, it should be their choice.

Nonsense, they have a licence from the state and that licence should prohibit them from denying service to paying customers. All they have to do is stick a pill in a bottle orwhatnot. They should STFU and do their job.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed May 16, 2012 7:19 pm

Moving Sale wrote:Nonsense, they have a licence from the state

And when the state that issues that license doesn't require pharmacies to carry birth control?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed May 16, 2012 7:26 pm

Then the law should be changed. Your assertion that it should be the pharmacist’s choice is utter BS.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed May 16, 2012 7:30 pm

That would be your opinion. Evidently the state of Kansas and their elected representatives disagree.

You lose...again.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed May 16, 2012 7:38 pm

It would be a lose for me if I lived in KS but I don't, so all it is is a difference of opinion. And if I'm disagreeing with you and a bunch of KSassholes then I must be doing something right.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed May 16, 2012 7:40 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:suckaholic,

Just curious, are you equating birth control pills with abortion?

No, I am not. But, I do not speak for others. I think women should have legal access to birf control, abortions (until the fetus is viable) and fukking heroin, for that matter.

It's really fukking simple. Gubmint should not force people to do things. Period.

This law does not keep anyone from getting anything. The fact that it may inconvenience some is though shit.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed May 16, 2012 7:47 pm

smackaholic wrote: Gubmint should not force people to do things. Period.

You mean like pay taxes, sign up for Selective Services, drive less than 100MPH, take care of their kids, etc?

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Thu May 17, 2012 12:44 am

Is there anything in Kansas worth impregnating anyway?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu May 17, 2012 1:26 am

Moving Sale wrote:
smackaholic wrote: Gubmint should not force people to do things. Period.
You mean like pay taxes, sign up for Selective Services, drive less than 100MPH, take care of their kids, etc?

OK, dumbass, I worded that poorly, but, you know what I mean. Of course we should be required to pay our taxes, drive reasonably and be held accountable in general for our actions, but, that is about it. You should not be forced to buy products against your will or sell them against your will.

In general, people should be left the fukk alone. We shouldn't have to have laws protecting the right to not take part in an activity, but, unfortunately, we have you fukking lawyers to thank for that.

titlover · Post by **titlover** » Thu May 17, 2012 2:53 am

Moving Sale wrote:
mvscal wrote:Presumably these people are running a business so it doesn't make much sense to me to turn customers away but, if they want to run a thumper friendly operation, it should be their choice.
Nonsense, they have a licence from the state and that licence should prohibit them from denying service to paying customers. All they have to do is stick a pill in a bottle orwhatnot. They should STFU and do their job.

that's twice you misspelled license. and both words are pretty close to each other.

you really are a lawyer?

holy fucking shit.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Thu May 17, 2012 3:15 am

Moving Sale wrote:
mvscal wrote:Presumably these people are running a business so it doesn't make much sense to me to turn customers away but, if they want to run a thumper friendly operation, it should be their choice.
Nonsense, they have a licence from the state and that licence should prohibit them from denying service to paying customers. All they have to do is stick a pill in a bottle orwhatnot. They should STFU and do their job.

But, you muslim-loving cunts see no problem with muslim cab drivers getting licenses and then refusing fares because they might have a souvenir bottle of liquor or are traveling with a pet......

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu May 17, 2012 3:21 am

88 wrote:Here is a link to the text of the new law:

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_1 ... rolled.pdf

I don't see what all the hubbub is about. If a pharmacy chooses not to fill your birth control prescription, and you want your birth control prescription filled, I guess you'll have to take your business elsewhere. I feel the same way about this law as I do about laws that prohibit bar owners from determining whether smoking should be permitted in their establishments. I am opposed to such laws, even though I do not smoke.

Smoking, like abortion, is legal. So why shouldn't a bar owner be permitted to determine what legal activities are permitted in his establishment? If he makes more money prohibiting his patrons from smoking, then he should be permitted to do so. On the flip side, if he believes he will make more money allowing his patrons to smoke, then he should be permitted to do so. Or he should be permitted to set up smoking zones etc. The market will sort it out.

The same is true of pharmacists who won't fill birth control prescriptions. It might help his business (but I doubt it). Or, it might help his competitor. I do not think the government should be telling citizens, including bar owners and pharmacists, how to run their businesses.

Someone tell me why this law is bad policy.

So you think medication is just like any other merchandise?

Truly ponderous.

When pharmacists start graduating from medical school they can decide what medicines the public should get. Until then they need to STFU & fill the prescription issued by the medical professional who DID graduate from medical school.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu May 17, 2012 3:52 am

88 wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:So you think medication is just like any other merchandise?

Truly ponderous.

When pharmacists start graduating from medical school they can decide what medicines the public should get. Until then they need to STFU & fill the prescription issued by the medical professional who DID graduate from medical school.
The pharmacists are not deciding what medicines the public should get. They are deciding what medicines those members of the public who choose to patronize their pharmacy can get.

Do you think we should have laws requiring all groceries to sell bacon, smokes, booze and spank mags? And why the fuck is Chick-Fil-A permitted to close on Sundays? Where does it end?

Access to bacon, smokes or spank mags don't have anything to do with people's health. Medicine does. Are you really that stupid to not see that difference, or are you just being obtuse?

And I'm glad you live in a metropolitan area. I can think of several towns where if THE pharmacist invoked their religious views on the public the public would be screwed unless they had a way to get a ride to the next closest pharmacy 39 to 60 minutes away by car. Try moving to a rural area before making such ignorant comments like "just go to another pharmacy."

M2 · Post by M2 » Thu May 17, 2012 4:03 am

88 wrote:Someone tell me why this law is bad policy.

You have a highly uneducated populous in Kansas outside of Kansas City and Lawrence. So much so, that they still don't want to have their children taught evolution in their schools. They're so backwards that they vote for the republican party in mass due to their belief that it's the only party that will back their religious dogma. They really frown on individual thought.

This is where the problem begins...

These people are so ignorant that they would boycott a Pharmacist/Pharmacy if they found out that they were selling a drug that breached their core beliefs.

The next thing you know... an honest businessman is out of business due to the ignorance of his costumers by filling a prescription by a medical doctor. This then gives the power to uneducated people on what drugs can be dispensed to the people in the community and not the doctors.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Thu May 17, 2012 4:03 am

There's nothing to prompt that sort of legislation. There can't have been a lobby for it and it doesn't really do anything. Pharmacists don't exactly rake it in.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Thu May 17, 2012 4:47 am

Sounds more like government shit-stirring and disrupting business, M2 got it.

M2 · Post by M2 » Thu May 17, 2012 4:57 am

I'm missing your point... are you saying a family and businessman should have to move his family out of a state where he and his family may have roots for generations... due to religious zealots that feel they need to pass laws that override medical advice from a physician ???

Wow.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu May 17, 2012 5:17 am

No medical advice is being overridden. Birth control is still legal and available in Kansas both locally and online. At worst, this would be a minor inconvenice to some people.

Sorry, but your convenice isn't a "right."

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Thu May 17, 2012 5:42 am

Can’t see what all the fuss is about.

Inconvenience? Swing a dead cat by its tail and you’ll hit a Wal-Mart in Kansas.

You cannot legally make people sell a product that they do not believe in.

Nor can you make them buy one, either.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu May 17, 2012 12:05 pm

Truman wrote:Nor can you make them buy one, either.

Bullshit

sin

auto insurance

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu May 17, 2012 12:20 pm

BSmack wrote:
Truman wrote:Nor can you make them buy one, either.
Bullshit

sin

auto insurance

more bullshit.

No one is required to buy auto insurance. You are required to buy it as a condition of having an automobile. Also remember that you are not required to buy the insurance for yourself. The requirement is that you have the insurance to cover others such as the dude you run into or the bank that holds the note on your sled.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu May 17, 2012 12:34 pm

88 wrote:What a choice: stupid or obtuse. The distinction you are attempting to draw makes no sense. Abortion is a medical procedure. Kansas law did not require doctors to perform abortions before the law was amended. Why should pharmacists be required to dispense birth control pills if they choose not to do so? How do you draw the line between doctors and pharmacists? Or are you suggesting that doctors should be required to perform abortions even if their religious beliefs consider the practice to be murder?

Doctors are licensed to practice medicine. Pharmacists aren't. Is it really that hard to understand?

Or maybe people living in a rural area adversely affected by a pharmacist's decision not to dispense birth control pills should try moving to a metropolitan area where there are more pharmacies that dispense the products they wish to purchase.

If pharmacists don't like their job they should find another. Their job is to put the pills in the bottle & say thank you....nothing more. Their only decisions should involve drug interaction & dependency issues. If they want to practice medicine they should go to med school. Otherwise they need to do the job they were licensed to do by the people of their state or fucking find another job.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu May 17, 2012 12:36 pm

smackaholic wrote:more bullshit.

No one is required to buy auto insurance. You are required to buy it as a condition of having an automobile. Also remember that you are not required to buy the insurance for yourself. The requirement is that you have the insurance to cover others such as the dude you run into or the bank that holds the note on your sled.

It is a requirement if you want to be anything more than a welfare check collector in the 90% of America that doesn't have mass transit. Any attempt to say otherwise is either stupid or disingenuous.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu May 17, 2012 12:50 pm

BSmack wrote:
smackaholic wrote:more bullshit.

No one is required to buy auto insurance. You are required to buy it as a condition of having an automobile. Also remember that you are not required to buy the insurance for yourself. The requirement is that you have the insurance to cover others such as the dude you run into or the bank that holds the note on your sled.
It is a requirement if you want to be anything more than a welfare check collector in the 90% of America that doesn't have mass transit. Any attempt to say otherwise is either stupid or disingenuous.

suckaholic is both.

The one issue regarding pharmacists refusing to fill legitimate prescriptions I see is this: I have a prescription that that my HMO pharmacy fills for a $10 co-pay. If some dickhead behind the counter decides he doesn’t want to fill the prescription, yes, I can go to another pharmacy and get the prescription filled. For $40.