For Those in Kansas

[MsElena]

Jack,

I didn't refer to the abortion, just the birth control pills. So, not all the people in this thread demanded it.

But, I do see both sides of the argument concerning the abortion pill. One has to take into effect though that not all women seeking that pill are doing just because they got pregnant. There are cases of rape and incest where the pill is a must in PREVENTING a pregnancy.

[Guest080613]

Originally Posted by MsElena

Jack,

I didn't refer to the abortion, just the birth control pills. So, not all the people in this thread demanded it.

But, I do see both sides of the argument concerning the abortion pill. One has to take into effect though that not all women seeking that pill are doing just because they got pregnant. There are cases of rape and incest where the pill is a must in PREVENTING a pregnancy.

I don't see that it matters much, MsElena.

A staunchly Catholic pharmacist may very well have moral and religious problems with dispensing birth control pills, or condoms for that matter. Why should they be forced to offer a product for sale if they feel it violates their religious principles?

Vote with your feet and checkbook and let them have their freedom, they're not infringing on anyone else's by refusing to sell products they don't want to.

Jack

[Allie_Kat]

Originally Posted by ksjack

I don't see that it matters much, MsElena.
A staunchly Catholic pharmacist may very well have moral and religious problems with dispensing birth control pills, or condoms for that matter. Why should they be forced to offer a product for sale if they feel it violates their religious principles?

I'm a woman. It's not a theory, it's not an idea, it's not a moral, it's not a religion. It's a biological fact.

Isn't it ironic how a an organization riddled with pedophile priests is expressing moral outrage over contraception?

[Allie_Kat]

Also, there are other medications that cause infertility and sterility. Do pharmacists now have the right to deny common medications to people? It's a slippery slope.
One day women might not even be allowed into a pharmacy at all.

[shamrock55]

I don't think this law can keep you from buying all birth control pills just the morning after pill maybe.

[JD Barleycorn]

Now Allie is getting ridiculous.

[Allie_Kat]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Now Allie is getting ridiculous.

[Guest052813-01]

I know this is indirectly related to this issue, but an interesting article from the Politico regarding a recent Gallup poll, about the number of people identifying themselves as "Pro-Choice" are going down, while those who are "Pro-Life" are going up. It can't be because all of these people are religious nuts, but that is why laws like this are gaining popularity.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76660.html

[BigMikeinKC]

So a pharmacist does not have to distribute birth control due to religious objections. So what if I work for the Post Office or UPS and deliver birth control through the mail? I might unwittingly distribute birth control against my religious principles, therefore violating my religious rights?

There are laws that restrict the religious rights already, they just aren't what many consider Chrisitan rights. For instance, the government does not allow pologamy.

[BigMikeinKC]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

I know this is indirectly related to this issue, but an interesting article from the Politico regarding a recent Gallup poll, about the number of people identifying themselves as "Pro-Choice" are going down, while those who are "Pro-Life" are going up. It can't be because all of these people are religious nuts, but that is why laws like this are gaining popularity.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76660.html

And in another poll, the number of people who oppose gay marriage is now lower than the number of people in favor of it.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

And in another poll, the number of people who oppose gay marriage is now lower than the number of people in favor of it.

Link, please? And is this really germane to the discussion topic of this thread?

[Guest102513-1]

IMO, the religious nuts are merely a subgroup of people who wish to impose their sense of morality, thru laws, onto another group of folks

The religious nuts are merely more "out there".....but let's face it folks, this attempt is not to try and "save" a pharmacists from being sued. It's a political move, during a political time....and attempt to legislate morality and solidfy a political base

And Fritz, let's be real here.....the mag Politico is a heavily leaning Republican-base Magazine. Does not mean it is without bias, but it is not exact Wall Street Journal quality reporting, lol

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by vkmaster

And Fritz, let's be real here.....the mag Politico is a heavily leaning Republican-base Magazine. Does not mean it is without bias, but it is not exact Wall Street Journal quality reporting, lol

I disagree. I find the Politico as being more left-leaning than right-leaning. And Gallup (who conducted the poll) is no friend of the GOP - their political polls are skewed heavily towards gathering the opinions of those registered as Democrats and Independents.

[KCJoe]

Brownback just signed a budget busting tax cut. I'm sure schools will be faced with further funding cuts. Property taxes and sales taxes will likely be increased to make up some of the differences. I think the term "swing for the fences" might apply to everything he's done.

[BigMikeinKC]

I've heard a lot of arguements from people saying that the government should not be able to tell people what to do. Here is language from the bill:

"No person shall be required to perform

, refer for, or participate in
medical procedures or in the prescription or administration of any device
or drug which result in the termination of a pregnancy or an effect of
which the person reasonably believes may result in the termination of a
pregnancy, and the refusal of any person to perform, refer for, or
participate in those medical procedures, prescription or administration

shall not be a basis for civil liability to any person. No hospital, hospital

health care facility, health care facility

administrator or governing board of
any hospital health care facility shall terminate the employment of, prevent
or impair the practice or occupation of or impose any other sanction on
any person because of such person's refusal to perform or participate in the
termination of any human pregnancy exercise of rights protected by this

section."

So, you own a business and hire a pharmacist - of course you can't ask what their religious beliefs are in the interview - said pharmacist refuses to supply the "morning after pill", which you as a business owner want to supply to you customers. You lose money and customers, but too bad, the government is interfering with your business by saying you can't fire said pharmacist.

However, since Kansas is an at will state - meaning you can fire an employee without cause - you still can't fire someone for their religious beliefs.

So what is the point of this law? You can make many arguements, but all aspects of this bill are already covered under existing laws.

This law was nothing but political pandering.