The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:23 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:26 am 
I have noted that the ruling clique in the Republican Party is trying to return America to age of William McKinley and Calvin Coolidge. Apparently part of that program is returning us to the days when talking about or providing women with birth control was illegal.

Quote:
For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.
. . .

Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim.

In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.

She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely.


"Now, see here, little lady, I can't give you back this piece of paper. You might do something immoral with it. A decent woman shouldn't even be thinking about things like this." What next, slashing their tires if you think they might try to drive to a Family Planning Clinic?

Addenda: Dr. W. David Hager is Bush's appointee heading up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. He not only thinks birth control is a sin, he has the power to do something about it; he has ignored the findings of his own scientists to veto approval of a new contraceptive drug.

Quote:
Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:08 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
Ah. I hold this right up at the same level as those who want to protect "traditional marriage".

You ask em what that means. They will respond,

"It means a man and a woman! Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"
The really good ones will throw in, "God hates fags!" at the end.

"So. You'll be picketing at the offices of divorce lawyers too, then?"

"Huh?"

"Marriage is a holy bond for all eternity, isn't it? Doesn't the existence of people whose entire living is to dissolve these bonds really chafe your hide? Hell, I knew one woman who had been divorced twice by the time she was 25. Oh, and I'll bet those "hollywood marriages" really grate your teeth. So, you'll be hanging around the SoCal churches, and the next time a pop-tart says she's going to tie the knot, you'll be the one driving the limo out? And when they think they are having a time, you'll pop up and say, 'This one's forever, and a woman's place is in the kitchen'?"

Somehow, they do just want to go right back to talking about homosexuals.

Sometimes, for fun, I can start deriding their selective faith in God. Sometimes they make it easy--by wearing glasses. God meant for you to be blind, chum, gimme those.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:12 am 
This demonstrates again the political skill the religious right has demonstrated over and over again the last few years. A passive-agressive action of this sort puts the moral onus of talking action on the legal system, allowing the movement to portray its people as martyrs. Meanwhile, they are one step closer to delegitimizing birth control socially; that it, they want to make being against birth control the cultural norm and being for birth control something you have to be defensive about when discussing it in public or in court. You can expect the right wing pundits to take this attitude on their TV appearances at some point.

As another example, at the height of the anti-war movement in the late sixties and early seventies, military service recruitment was vigorously delegitimized by the anti-war movement. One manuever consisted of law suits and petitions by activists demanding that anti-military information be made available to students whenever military recruiters appeared on their high school career days, to counter the recruiters sales pitch, one-sided portrayal of military life, etc. The aim was three-fold; first, the direct one of providing arguments against joining the military. Second, to create nuisance work for school administrators planning career days. Third, to establish the idea that military recruitment was not like other job recruitment; that it was something abnormal, requiring a special warning label in the form of an anti-war booth at the show.

You can pick up this pattern in a lot of the legal and propaganda manuevers of the religious right.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:42 pm 
Ishidan wrote:
"So. You'll be picketing at the offices of divorce lawyers too, then?"

"Huh?"

"Marriage is a holy bond for all eternity, isn't it? Doesn't the existence of people whose entire living is to dissolve these bonds really chafe your hide? Hell, I knew one woman who had been divorced twice by the time she was 25. Oh, and I'll bet those "hollywood marriages" really grate your teeth. So, you'll be hanging around the SoCal churches, and the next time a pop-tart says she's going to tie the knot, you'll be the one driving the limo out? And when they think they are having a time, you'll pop up and say, 'This one's forever, and a woman's place is in the kitchen'?"


Remember, Already lost battle vs. Battle still being fought.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:47 pm 
Berken wrote:
I have noted that the ruling clique in the Republican Party is trying to return America to age of William McKinley and Calvin Coolidge. Apparently part of that program is returning us to the days when talking about or providing women with birth control was illegal.

Quote:
For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.
. . .

Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim.

In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.

She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely.


"Now, see here, little lady, I can't give you back this piece of paper. You might do something immoral with it. A decent woman shouldn't even be thinking about things like this." What next, slashing their tires if you think they might try to drive to a Family Planning Clinic?


This is all very well and good, but what does the activities of a few activist pharmacy workers have to do with the republican party?

Plus slashing tires hyperbole is just idiotic. That would be Actively harming someone else's property, while what they're doing is simply refusing to render services. Really, the only horrible thing they did was refuse to return their prescription paper. This wouldn't be a problem except for the totalitarian/tyrannical FDA regulations around prescription drugs.

Quote:
Addenda: Dr. W. David Hager is Bush's appointee heading up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. He not only thinks birth control is a sin, he has the power to do something about it; he has ignored the findings of his own scientists to veto approval of a new contraceptive drug.

Quote:
Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.


Ahh, so you're tossing in an unrelated republican that isn't even mentioned above doing something much more mild so that your audience will associate them with the much worse acts of a couple of unrelated activist pharmacists?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:20 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
This is all very well and good, but what does the activities of a few activist pharmacy workers have to do with the republican party?


Kazriko wrote:
Ahh, so you're tossing in an unrelated republican that isn't even mentioned above doing something much more mild so that your audience will associate them with the much worse acts of a couple of unrelated activist pharmacists?

Er . . . you didn't get the word that Evangelical Christian activists are a well organized national political force---and how their surge in voter registration gave the Republicans their edge in the national elections? Or that the Republicans have promised to promote their anti-abortion agenda in exchange for their support? Also, that many of the most powerful Republicans in the nation (starting with President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft, and house majority leader Tom Delay) are all Evangelicals themselves and fervent supporters of this agenda?

Come on, I'm pretty sure you read the newspapers! Not to mention their speeches.

And what is "mild" about a federal appointee censoring legally required scientifc research to force his personal religious views into a regulation that affects fifty or so million American women?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 12:38 am 
Berken wrote:
Kazriko wrote:
This is all very well and good, but what does the activities of a few activist pharmacy workers have to do with the republican party?


Kazriko wrote:
Ahh, so you're tossing in an unrelated republican that isn't even mentioned above doing something much more mild so that your audience will associate them with the much worse acts of a couple of unrelated activist pharmacists?

Er . . . you didn't get the word that Evangelical Christian activists are a well organized national political force---and how their surge in voter registration gave the Republicans their edge in the national elections? Or that the Republicans have promised to promote their anti-abortion agenda in exchange for their support? Also, that many of the most powerful Republicans in the nation (starting with President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft, and house majority leader Tom Delay) are all Evangelicals themselves and fervent supporters of this agenda?


That is entirely not the point. You claimed that the republican *PARTY* leadership was doing it without backing it up with any evidence in your article. When you can get specifics of the republican party leadership as a whole advocating this, THEN you can say the republican party is advocating this. At most you can say "A few republican leaders are." Your argument is also weakened by the fact that 1/3rd of your "most powerful republicans" just lost his job. Interesting that Bush has just recently said he would appoint a pro-abortion lawyer for district attorney if he fervently supports that agenda.

Quote:
Come on, I'm pretty sure you read the newspapers! Not to mention their speeches.

And what is "mild" about a federal appointee censoring legally required scientifc research to force his personal religious views into a regulation that affects fifty or so million American women?


It's mild because it's only a new drug. He did not remove any existing drugs from the market. In a few years they'll try it again with a friendlier administration. It's just a delay. They aren't denying birth control to anyone. The activist pharmacists are denying legal drugs to women with prescriptions by withholding their prescription slip. That's the major offense.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:58 am 
Observation: The right to not reproduce is called a reproductive right.

(Yes, I know it's refering to the reproductive system, and not to the act of reproduction. It's just a funny observation, I'm not trying to be inflammable.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:01 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
BBlalock wrote:
Observation: The right to not reproduce is called a reproductive right.


That's right.

Unless, of course, you're from the Religious Right.

(of course, there's a similar but opposite confusion regarding one's OWN life: apparently, say many, you have the right to keep it--fair enough--but not the right to end it. That's why Dr. Kevorkian is in prison right now.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:19 pm 
Just be glad you're not in China. Over there it's called a "Reproductive Privilege"


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group