1
   

Seperation of Muslims & State

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 12:57 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Personally, I'm looking forward to atheists refusing to drive costumed nuns or priests in their taxi cabs.


Wasn't too long ago that people refused to give a person a ride in a taxi if their hair was too long or their skin too dark or if they had military buzz cuts.

Wasn't too long ago ago being the operative term.
I just noticed your signature LSM quoting Larry The Cable Guy, I don't know if you appreciated that line or not, but I'm flattered that you would use that quote....I think.


I just noticed you ignored the point about christian pharmacists.

As you did about my question of were you turned down at other adoption agencies
The reason I ignored the question was because the Christian pharmacists didn't get by with that either, but you knew that, just a little trick you tried to avert the topic by you.



But let's be clear. I'm under the assumption that:

You AGREE that Pharmacists should be able to serve who they want based on THEIR CHRISTIAN religious beliefs.

and....

You DISAGREE that cab drives should be abel to serve who they want based on THEIR ISLAMIC religious beliefs.



Is that right?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 12:58 am
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Personally, I'm looking forward to atheists refusing to drive costumed nuns or priests in their taxi cabs.


Wasn't too long ago that people refused to give a person a ride in a taxi if their hair was too long or their skin too dark or if they had military buzz cuts.

Wasn't too long ago ago being the operative term.
I just noticed your signature LSM quoting Larry The Cable Guy, I don't know if you appreciated that line or not, but I'm flattered that you would use that quote....I think.


I just noticed you ignored the point about christian pharmacists.

As you did about my question of were you turned down at other adoption agencies
The reason I ignored the question was because the Christian pharmacists didn't get by with that either, but you knew that, just a little trick you tried to avert the topic by you.



Sorry, I didn't know my personal business was really relevant to this topic. But yes, I was turned down at one other orphanage, also Catholic. This was about 3 weeks ago, and I haven't looked at another one since. Do you have any suggestions to non-religious affiliated orphanages?

And, the reason that I'm telling you this was due to being non-religious is because that is precisely what I was told.

Here is an interesting article on Religion's influence in adoption practices.


Whoops, here's the link.

http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/religion/306/1.html
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 01:30 am
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Personally, I'm looking forward to atheists refusing to drive costumed nuns or priests in their taxi cabs.


Wasn't too long ago that people refused to give a person a ride in a taxi if their hair was too long or their skin too dark or if they had military buzz cuts.

Wasn't too long ago ago being the operative term.
I just noticed your signature LSM quoting Larry The Cable Guy, I don't know if you appreciated that line or not, but I'm flattered that you would use that quote....I think.


I just noticed you ignored the point about christian pharmacists.

As you did about my question of were you turned down at other adoption agencies
The reason I ignored the question was because the Christian pharmacists didn't get by with that either, but you knew that, just a little trick you tried to avert the topic by you.



But let's be clear. I'm under the assumption that:

You AGREE that Pharmacists should be able to serve who they want based on THEIR CHRISTIAN religious beliefs.

and....

You DISAGREE that cab drives should be abel to serve who they want based on THEIR ISLAMIC religious beliefs.



Is that right?

To asume is to make an ass of u & me, you assumed wrong. I have not even addressed the pharmacist situation here until tonight & you can not show where i said anything close to what you accuse me of.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 01:34 am
maporsche wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Personally, I'm looking forward to atheists refusing to drive costumed nuns or priests in their taxi cabs.


Wasn't too long ago that people refused to give a person a ride in a taxi if their hair was too long or their skin too dark or if they had military buzz cuts.

Wasn't too long ago ago being the operative term.
I just noticed your signature LSM quoting Larry The Cable Guy, I don't know if you appreciated that line or not, but I'm flattered that you would use that quote....I think.


I just noticed you ignored the point about christian pharmacists.

As you did about my question of were you turned down at other adoption agencies
The reason I ignored the question was because the Christian pharmacists didn't get by with that either, but you knew that, just a little trick you tried to avert the topic by you.



Sorry, I didn't know my personal business was really relevant to this topic. But yes, I was turned down at one other orphanage, also Catholic. This was about 3 weeks ago, and I haven't looked at another one since. Do you have any suggestions to non-religious affiliated orphanages?

And, the reason that I'm telling you this was due to being non-religious is because that is precisely what I was told.

Here is an interesting article on Religion's influence in adoption practices.


Whoops, here's the link.

http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/religion/306/1.html

You're the one that brought your personal situation onto the thread when you said that a Catholic adoption agency turned you down because you aren't Christian. Now you say other adoption agencys have turned you down....was the reasons there because you aren't Christian? I doubt it. What i think you tried to get by with is just bashing Christians again, however, you at least admitted to having been turned down by other agencies.
A little advice, if you don't want your personal business discussed on a forum, don't tell your business.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:15 am
Taxis are common carriers and are licensed as such. Consequently, taxi drivers typically cannot refuse to take a passenger unless that passenger poses some kind of threat to the driver. Taxi drivers who refuse to pick up a fare, for any reason other than personal safety, should be disciplined
    "I was surprised and shocked when I heard it was an issue at the airport," said Faysal Omar. "Back in Somalia, there was never any problem with taking alcohol in a taxi." Jama Dirie said, "If a driver doesn't pick up everyone, he should get his license canceled and get kicked out of the airport."

(Source). I think that's correct. If the taxi regulations are anything like those in other major cities in the US, a driver who refuses to pick up a fare on religious grounds should have his license revoked.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:43 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Taxis are common carriers and are licensed as such. Consequently, taxi drivers typically cannot refuse to take a passenger unless that passenger poses some kind of threat to the driver. Taxi drivers who refuse to pick up a fare, for any reason other than personal safety, should be disciplined
    "I was surprised and shocked when I heard it was an issue at the airport," said Faysal Omar. "Back in Somalia, there was never any problem with taking alcohol in a taxi." Jama Dirie said, "If a driver doesn't pick up everyone, he should get his license canceled and get kicked out of the airport."

(Source). I think that's correct. If the taxi regulations are anything like those in other major cities in the US, a driver who refuses to pick up a fare on religious grounds should have his license revoked.



I think that people with dogs may pose a threat to a Muslim. It may upset Allah and send him to hell. What if they got in a car accident on that fare and died, the muslim would be damned for all eternity because of a fare. Seems pretty treatening to me.

You gotta love religion.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:45 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Personally, I'm looking forward to atheists refusing to drive costumed nuns or priests in their taxi cabs.


Wasn't too long ago that people refused to give a person a ride in a taxi if their hair was too long or their skin too dark or if they had military buzz cuts.

Wasn't too long ago ago being the operative term.
I just noticed your signature LSM quoting Larry The Cable Guy, I don't know if you appreciated that line or not, but I'm flattered that you would use that quote....I think.


I just noticed you ignored the point about christian pharmacists.

As you did about my question of were you turned down at other adoption agencies
The reason I ignored the question was because the Christian pharmacists didn't get by with that either, but you knew that, just a little trick you tried to avert the topic by you.



But let's be clear. I'm under the assumption that:

You AGREE that Pharmacists should be able to serve who they want based on THEIR CHRISTIAN religious beliefs.

and....

You DISAGREE that cab drives should be abel to serve who they want based on THEIR ISLAMIC religious beliefs.



Is that right?

To asume is to make an ass of u & me, you assumed wrong. I have not even addressed the pharmacist situation here until tonight & you can not show where i said anything close to what you accuse me of.


You didn't address the Pharmacist situation, you mentioned that it fell through the cracks (yet there are still pharmacits bithcing about it). You never gave your point of view in this thread.

So, you think that pharmacists should give birth control no matter what their religious beliefs are?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:46 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Sorry, I didn't know my personal business was really relevant to this topic. But yes, I was turned down at one other orphanage, also Catholic. This was about 3 weeks ago, and I haven't looked at another one since. Do you have any suggestions to non-religious affiliated orphanages?

And, the reason that I'm telling you this was due to being non-religious is because that is precisely what I was told.

You're the one that brought your personal situation onto the thread when you said that a Catholic adoption agency turned you down because you aren't Christian. Now you say other adoption agencys have turned you down....was the reasons there because you aren't Christian? I doubt it. What i think you tried to get by with is just bashing Christians again, however, you at least admitted to having been turned down by other agencies.

Compare the bolded pieces and wonder with me: can LSM actually read?

How did being turned down by one other, also Catholic, adoption agency, turn into "having been turned down by other agencies", and not for religious reasons?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:47 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Personally, I'm looking forward to atheists refusing to drive costumed nuns or priests in their taxi cabs.


Wasn't too long ago that people refused to give a person a ride in a taxi if their hair was too long or their skin too dark or if they had military buzz cuts.

Wasn't too long ago ago being the operative term.
I just noticed your signature LSM quoting Larry The Cable Guy, I don't know if you appreciated that line or not, but I'm flattered that you would use that quote....I think.


I just noticed you ignored the point about christian pharmacists.

As you did about my question of were you turned down at other adoption agencies
The reason I ignored the question was because the Christian pharmacists didn't get by with that either, but you knew that, just a little trick you tried to avert the topic by you.



Sorry, I didn't know my personal business was really relevant to this topic. But yes, I was turned down at one other orphanage, also Catholic. This was about 3 weeks ago, and I haven't looked at another one since. Do you have any suggestions to non-religious affiliated orphanages?

And, the reason that I'm telling you this was due to being non-religious is because that is precisely what I was told.

Here is an interesting article on Religion's influence in adoption practices.


Whoops, here's the link.

http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/religion/306/1.html

You're the one that brought your personal situation onto the thread when you said that a Catholic adoption agency turned you down because you aren't Christian. Now you say other adoption agencys have turned you down....was the reasons there because you aren't Christian? I doubt it. What i think you tried to get by with is just bashing Christians again, however, you at least admitted to having been turned down by other agencies.
A little advice, if you don't want your personal business discussed on a forum, don't tell your business.


You are so full of ****. I never said that other AGENCYS turned me down. I said that ONE other CATHOLIC AGENCY turned me down. THEY BOTH TOLD IT WAS DUE TO ME NOT BEING CATHOLIC. I posted a link that describes the laws written into states judicial system proving that this happens across the country.

Selective reading huh LSM.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:50 am
Re: Seperation of Muslims & State
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nimh wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
What's next, a Jewish taxi driver refusing a fare to someone with a cross? Or maybe a Christian taxi driver refusing to allow a gay couple into the taxi because that is against his/her religion? See where this can go? Of course i realize that it isn't PC to deny a muslim any accomodation.

Hmmm... would lambasting a Christian taxi driver for refusing to allow a gay couple in be PC, or un-PC?

Let me guess - lambasting a Christian driver for refusing people a ride on religious reasons would be liberal PC; but lambasting a Muslim driver for refusing people a ride on religious reasons would be commonsensically un-PC.

A Christian taxi driver wouldn't get away with it, the ACLU would be on him/her like stink on poop.

You didnt answer the question.

You did provide a pointer, though, so let me take you up on it:

If the ACLU would be on a Christian taxi driver "like stink on poop" for refusing to carry a passenger on religious grounds, would it be being PC?

Are the conservative critics of the Muslim taxi drivers who are refusing to carry a passenger on religious grounds, being PC?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 12:36 pm
Quote:
I just noticed your signature LSM quoting Larry The Cable Guy, I don't know if you appreciated that line or not, but I'm flattered that you would use that quote....I think.


It is there to remind me that people often post rude, contrary opinions just for that purpose.

It reminds me not to bother responding until they've gotten it out of their system and can express themselves in a civil manner.

Glad you're flattered....I think.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 12:40 pm
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Personally, I'm looking forward to atheists refusing to drive costumed nuns or priests in their taxi cabs.


Wasn't too long ago that people refused to give a person a ride in a taxi if their hair was too long or their skin too dark or if they had military buzz cuts.

Wasn't too long ago ago being the operative term.
I just noticed your signature LSM quoting Larry The Cable Guy, I don't know if you appreciated that line or not, but I'm flattered that you would use that quote....I think.


I just noticed you ignored the point about christian pharmacists.

As you did about my question of were you turned down at other adoption agencies
The reason I ignored the question was because the Christian pharmacists didn't get by with that either, but you knew that, just a little trick you tried to avert the topic by you.



But let's be clear. I'm under the assumption that:

You AGREE that Pharmacists should be able to serve who they want based on THEIR CHRISTIAN religious beliefs.

and....

You DISAGREE that cab drives should be abel to serve who they want based on THEIR ISLAMIC religious beliefs.



Is that right?

To asume is to make an ass of u & me, you assumed wrong. I have not even addressed the pharmacist situation here until tonight & you can not show where i said anything close to what you accuse me of.


You didn't address the Pharmacist situation, you mentioned that it fell through the cracks (yet there are still pharmacits bithcing about it). You never gave your point of view in this thread.

So, you think that pharmacists should give birth control no matter what their religious beliefs are?

Where did I say it fell through the cracks?
I will not give my view on the pharmacist situation, it's none of your business.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 12:41 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
Quote:
I just noticed your signature LSM quoting Larry The Cable Guy, I don't know if you appreciated that line or not, but I'm flattered that you would use that quote....I think.


It is there to remind me that people often post rude, contrary opinions just for that purpose.

It reminds me not to bother responding until they've gotten it out of their system and can express themselves in a civil manner.

Glad you're flattered....I think.

Yes, we're all guilty of being rude from time to time.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 01:48 pm
If Joe is right and taxi drivers can't refuse passengers on those grounds, then the taxi drivers should be fired or whatever.

However, LSM is wrong about ("it not happening") Christian pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives at pharmacies.

Culture war hits local pharmacy

Quote:
CHICAGO - The culture wars have already seeped into hospices, movie theaters, and the Super Bowl. Now, even the corner drugstore has become a battleground.

From rural Texas to Chicago, more instances are cropping up of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill. As a result, politicians around the country are stepping into the fray.

It's a debate that weighs personal morals against professional responsibility. It pits religious rights against patients' rights and raises the question of just where pharmacists stand on the spectrum of health-care professionals.

Many pharmacists point to the "conscience-clause" exceptions that nearly every state has in place for doctors, allowing them to recuse themselves from performing abortions or other procedures they object to. They believe they should have similar protection.

Critics point out that filling a prescription is a very different job from writing one, and question whether pharmacists can deny a legal drug on moral grounds. And the patients who have been denied are simply angry to see their prescriptions become fodder for a public debate - especially when the prescriptions they wanted filled were for something as time-sensitive as emergency contraceptives, often known as the morning-after pill.

"Most observers seem to say it [refusing to give out contraceptives] is picking up, and there seems to be a more organized campaign to allow pharmacists to refuse," says Adam Sonfeild, an analyst with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health issues.

And as the issue gets more attention, politicians are weighing in - on both sides:

• In Illinois, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) last week issued an executive rule clarifying his view of state law: Any pharmacy that sells contraceptives must promptly fill a woman's prescription for them.

• Four states, including California and New Jersey, are considering laws that would require pharmacists to fill prescriptions despite any religious or moral objections, unless they could find an alternative that doesn't inconvenience the patient.

• Thirteen states are considering giving pharmacists the kind of conscience-clause outs that doctors have, allowing them to refuse to fill some prescriptions that go against their personal beliefs. (Four already have such laws on the books.)

• In a related issue, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens (R) exercised a rare veto this week, for a bill that would have required all hospitals - including Catholic ones - to inform rape victims about the availability of emergency contraceptives. Among other concerns, he questioned the constitutionality of forcing religious institutions to engage in speech counter to their principles.

With the pharmacist battles, it's principles of individuals, rather than institutions, that come into play. While no hard numbers are available, anecdotes have cropped up with increasing frequency.

Two pharmacists at a drugstore in Texas refused to fill a prescription for an emergency contraceptive for a woman said to be a rape victim. They were later fired. In Wisconsin, a judge reprimanded Neil Noesen this year for not only refusing to fill a college student's prescription for birth-control pills, but for balking at transferring the prescription to a pharmacist who would fill it.

Governor Blagojevich's ruling was prompted by a pharmacist at a downtown drugstore who refused to give emergency contraceptives to two women. "The governor said that there seems to be a pattern here, and it was important to take action quickly to make sure pharmacies in Illinois know they have an obligation to ensure a woman's access to health care," says Abby Ottenhoff, an aide to the governor.

Public opinion tends to come down in favor of the patient. In a November New York Times poll, just 16 percent of respondents said they believed a pharmacist should be able to refuse to dispense birth-control pills for religious reasons. Among white evangelical Christians, that number grew to just 24 percent.

But many pharmacists believe it's possible to accommodate their consciences and still ensure a patient gets her prescription. "We support the pharmacist stepping away, but we don't support them stepping in the way," explains Susan Winckler of the American Pharmacists Association, which adopted a policy calling for conscience protections, as long as the pharmacy had an alternative system in place - another pharmacist on duty, for instance, or an agreement with a neighboring pharmacy. The issue first arose not because of contraceptives, she says, but over pharmacists in Oregon concerned about taking part in assisted suicide.

Ms. Winckler is concerned about the order in Illinois, which she says has caused many drugstores to reverse their policies and doesn't take into account that pharmacists may refuse to fill a prescription due to health concerns as well as moral objections. She's also worried about proposed laws that give too much weight to either the pharmacist's rights or the patient's rights, instead of considering them both.

Still, in a conflict, the patient's rights should win, say some medical ethicists. "For the past few years now, pharmacists have wanted to model their relationship with the patient on the physician-patient relationship, which is not really appropriate," says Evelyne Shuster, a medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Others wonder about the implications down the road: A pharmacist only agreeing to give contraceptives to married clients, for instance. Defenders of the conscience clause dismiss such fears as ridiculous, and contend that pharmacists - who have an obligation to look out for their clients' interests when it comes to, say, adverse side effects or potential allergies - are healthcare professionals who should have the same protections as doctors do.

"We intervene and stop prescriptions and make doctors change prescriptions," says Karen Brauer, a pharmacist in Lawrenceburg, Ind. The pharmacy she works at refuses to stock contraceptives - a fact she explains if people come in looking for them - but she feels that workers at any pharmacy need to be able to follow their conscience.

Ms. Brauer, along with some other pharmacists, has a particular problem with emergency contraceptives because they work by inhibiting ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. While most medical professionals define pregnancy as beginning with implantation in the uterus, she and some others consider a fertilized egg, even before implantation, to be human. "We should be free to opt out of killing humans at any stage of development," she says. "If women really want this drug, they are going to have to find a willing provider."

Others voice more tempered views, but still feel that allowing a right of conscience shouldn't have to keep a patient from being serviced. "We don't force doctors to perform abortions, and we shouldn't force pharmacists to dispense contraceptives," says Steven Aden of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom.

He doesn't buy the argument that referring a client elsewhere can be too burdensome or cause delays that threaten the effectiveness of the morning-after pill. "You don't force somebody to do something they think is morally wrong because somebody can't get into a car or a bus and access healthcare."

Reproductive-rights advocates note that keeping a woman from the morning-after pill can cause more unwanted pregnancies - and potentially abortions - than making it available. But above all, they say the issue comes down to discrimination that no woman should have to face at the pharmacy. "A pharmacist's job is to dispense medication," says Steve Trombley, president of Planned Parenthood Chicago. "Not moral judgment."
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 02:22 pm
revel wrote:
If Joe is right and taxi drivers can't refuse passengers on those grounds, then the taxi drivers should be fired or whatever.

However, LSM is wrong about ("it not happening") Christian pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives at pharmacies.

Culture war hits local pharmacy

Quote:
CHICAGO - The culture wars have already seeped into hospices, movie theaters, and the Super Bowl. Now, even the corner drugstore has become a battleground.

From rural Texas to Chicago, more instances are cropping up of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill. As a result, politicians around the country are stepping into the fray.

It's a debate that weighs personal morals against professional responsibility. It pits religious rights against patients' rights and raises the question of just where pharmacists stand on the spectrum of health-care professionals.

Many pharmacists point to the "conscience-clause" exceptions that nearly every state has in place for doctors, allowing them to recuse themselves from performing abortions or other procedures they object to. They believe they should have similar protection.

Critics point out that filling a prescription is a very different job from writing one, and question whether pharmacists can deny a legal drug on moral grounds. And the patients who have been denied are simply angry to see their prescriptions become fodder for a public debate - especially when the prescriptions they wanted filled were for something as time-sensitive as emergency contraceptives, often known as the morning-after pill.

"Most observers seem to say it [refusing to give out contraceptives] is picking up, and there seems to be a more organized campaign to allow pharmacists to refuse," says Adam Sonfeild, an analyst with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health issues.

And as the issue gets more attention, politicians are weighing in - on both sides:

• In Illinois, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) last week issued an executive rule clarifying his view of state law: Any pharmacy that sells contraceptives must promptly fill a woman's prescription for them.

• Four states, including California and New Jersey, are considering laws that would require pharmacists to fill prescriptions despite any religious or moral objections, unless they could find an alternative that doesn't inconvenience the patient.

• Thirteen states are considering giving pharmacists the kind of conscience-clause outs that doctors have, allowing them to refuse to fill some prescriptions that go against their personal beliefs. (Four already have such laws on the books.)

• In a related issue, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens (R) exercised a rare veto this week, for a bill that would have required all hospitals - including Catholic ones - to inform rape victims about the availability of emergency contraceptives. Among other concerns, he questioned the constitutionality of forcing religious institutions to engage in speech counter to their principles.

With the pharmacist battles, it's principles of individuals, rather than institutions, that come into play. While no hard numbers are available, anecdotes have cropped up with increasing frequency.

Two pharmacists at a drugstore in Texas refused to fill a prescription for an emergency contraceptive for a woman said to be a rape victim. They were later fired. In Wisconsin, a judge reprimanded Neil Noesen this year for not only refusing to fill a college student's prescription for birth-control pills, but for balking at transferring the prescription to a pharmacist who would fill it.

Governor Blagojevich's ruling was prompted by a pharmacist at a downtown drugstore who refused to give emergency contraceptives to two women. "The governor said that there seems to be a pattern here, and it was important to take action quickly to make sure pharmacies in Illinois know they have an obligation to ensure a woman's access to health care," says Abby Ottenhoff, an aide to the governor.

Public opinion tends to come down in favor of the patient. In a November New York Times poll, just 16 percent of respondents said they believed a pharmacist should be able to refuse to dispense birth-control pills for religious reasons. Among white evangelical Christians, that number grew to just 24 percent.

But many pharmacists believe it's possible to accommodate their consciences and still ensure a patient gets her prescription. "We support the pharmacist stepping away, but we don't support them stepping in the way," explains Susan Winckler of the American Pharmacists Association, which adopted a policy calling for conscience protections, as long as the pharmacy had an alternative system in place - another pharmacist on duty, for instance, or an agreement with a neighboring pharmacy. The issue first arose not because of contraceptives, she says, but over pharmacists in Oregon concerned about taking part in assisted suicide.

Ms. Winckler is concerned about the order in Illinois, which she says has caused many drugstores to reverse their policies and doesn't take into account that pharmacists may refuse to fill a prescription due to health concerns as well as moral objections. She's also worried about proposed laws that give too much weight to either the pharmacist's rights or the patient's rights, instead of considering them both.

Still, in a conflict, the patient's rights should win, say some medical ethicists. "For the past few years now, pharmacists have wanted to model their relationship with the patient on the physician-patient relationship, which is not really appropriate," says Evelyne Shuster, a medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Others wonder about the implications down the road: A pharmacist only agreeing to give contraceptives to married clients, for instance. Defenders of the conscience clause dismiss such fears as ridiculous, and contend that pharmacists - who have an obligation to look out for their clients' interests when it comes to, say, adverse side effects or potential allergies - are healthcare professionals who should have the same protections as doctors do.

"We intervene and stop prescriptions and make doctors change prescriptions," says Karen Brauer, a pharmacist in Lawrenceburg, Ind. The pharmacy she works at refuses to stock contraceptives - a fact she explains if people come in looking for them - but she feels that workers at any pharmacy need to be able to follow their conscience.

Ms. Brauer, along with some other pharmacists, has a particular problem with emergency contraceptives because they work by inhibiting ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. While most medical professionals define pregnancy as beginning with implantation in the uterus, she and some others consider a fertilized egg, even before implantation, to be human. "We should be free to opt out of killing humans at any stage of development," she says. "If women really want this drug, they are going to have to find a willing provider."

Others voice more tempered views, but still feel that allowing a right of conscience shouldn't have to keep a patient from being serviced. "We don't force doctors to perform abortions, and we shouldn't force pharmacists to dispense contraceptives," says Steven Aden of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom.

He doesn't buy the argument that referring a client elsewhere can be too burdensome or cause delays that threaten the effectiveness of the morning-after pill. "You don't force somebody to do something they think is morally wrong because somebody can't get into a car or a bus and access healthcare."

Reproductive-rights advocates note that keeping a woman from the morning-after pill can cause more unwanted pregnancies - and potentially abortions - than making it available. But above all, they say the issue comes down to discrimination that no woman should have to face at the pharmacy. "A pharmacist's job is to dispense medication," says Steve Trombley, president of Planned Parenthood Chicago. "Not moral judgment."

LSM never said it not happening[/I]. I realize that you & a couple of others love to tell people what they said because you think that's what they said, but as usual, you & a couple of other people are wrong. This thread is not about pharmacists, this thread is about some muslims that are using their religion to deny some people their rights. You want to talk about pharmacists or some other malady that you find abhorrant, start a thread.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 02:26 pm
BTW-That article is from 2005, got anything more recent? I still say ago[/i]
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 03:20 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Where did I say it fell through the cracks?
I will not give my view on the pharmacist situation, it's none of your business.


What I was referring to was your dismissal of the situation because "they didn't get by with that either".

I'm curious why you would feel like giving your opinion on just about everything else in this forum, yet you refuse to answer this question. Interesting.

I'd be curious to hear whether or not you think it right for adoption agencies to refuse to adopt to non-religious people. IF you don't believe my situation, then check out the link I posted.




Do you think it's ok for pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?

Do you think it's ok for the adoption agencies to discriminate against a couple based on their religion?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 03:33 pm
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Where did I say it fell through the cracks?
I will not give my view on the pharmacist situation, it's none of your business.


What I was referring to was your dismissal of the situation because "they didn't get by with that either".

I'm curious why you would feel like giving your opinion on just about everything else in this forum, yet you refuse to answer this question. Interesting.

I'd be curious to hear whether or not you think it right for adoption agencies to refuse to adopt to non-religious people. IF you don't believe my situation, then check out the link I posted.




Do you think it's ok for pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?

Do you think it's ok for the adoption agencies to discriminate against a couple based on their religion?

For as smart as you seem to think you are, I'd think that you could figure out what they didn't get by with that either means. If i have to spell it out for you, you still wouldn't be capable of grasping what I say, so, I'll just leave you to your own illusion/dilusions, until maybe you figure it out.
I believe that private adoption agencies & public adoption agencies are different. If a Christian/private adoption agency has certain criteria/requirements that must be met, the either meet them or go elsewhere. If it's a public/state adoption agency, no, I don't think religio, color, nor creed should have a place in the requirement. Have you ever heard of an adoption agency refusing to allow a white couple to adopt a black child solely because of the race? I have.
If the pharmacist owns the drug store, yes, it's his right to refuse to stock anything he finds objectionable, IMO. However, & I believe this is the case, if that pharmacist works for a drugstore that does stock & sell the product, the pharmacist must sell it, IMO. I also believe that if I own property that it is my decision as to who I choose to allow on my property or who I choose to allow to rent my property.
Satisfied now?
Why were you turned down by the other adoption agencies?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 05:02 pm
By 2001, there were 3,086 taxi service establishments, employing a total of 30,281 workers with a payroll of $489 million. Most of the companies were small; approximately 2,500 employed fewer than 10 workers. The majority of the drivers were either independent contractors licensed through and renting their vehicles from the taxi companies, or owneroperators affiliated with a taxi company or association. The industry continued to face competition from limousine services, executive sedans, and airport/hotel shuttle services. To compete, by 2003 taxi services were offering online bookings and vehicles equipped with televisions, as well as newer, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

In large companies, some dispatchers worked in two-person teams, one taking incoming calls and the other dispatching them. The position of dispatcher once represented a promotion awarded to experienced cab drivers, whose familiarity with the city best qualified them for the job. However, the increase in computer-based dispatching in the early 1990s prompted cab companies to favor computer skills over specialized knowledge of local geography when filling the dispatcher position.

Regulation of the U.S. taxi industry varied from city to city. While almost all cities had some form of licensing requirements, larger urban areas had the strictest regulations. In New York, for example, the number of licenses or "medallions" allotted the industry remained at 11,787 from 1937 until 1996. In 1996, 133 additional medallions were auctioned at prices between $172,000 and $221,000. Applicants for a taxi driver's license in New York were required to complete a 40-80 hour training course and pass an English exam, as well as a final exam. About 30 percent of applicants failed the English exam, and 33 percent failed the final exam. Boston's regulations were similar to those of New York, with the number of available medallions frozen at 1,525 and selling for approximately $90,000 in the 1990s.

In most cities, regulations focused on fares charged to customers, with rates assigned to designated zones of the city. Seattle and Phoenix experimented with deregulating their cab industry in 1979 and 1982, respectively. Fare limits were imposed only on trips to and from airports, to protect tourists from unscrupulous drivers. After some initial price wars, cab fares eventually stabilized in Phoenix, but Seattle re-regulated its industry in 1996, following years of declining service quality. The new regulations called for dress codes, standard per-mile fees, mandatory geography and language testing for drivers, and age limits on vehicles.

Government incentives for alternative fuels in the latter 1990s provided ample opportunity for city and county governments to convert their vehicles to energy-efficient fleets. In 1998, Ford Motor Company began offering $5,000 incentives to taxi operators who bought Ford's compressed-natural-gas Crown Victoria taxi vehicles. The biggest market was New York City, where more than 105 vehicles were sold.

CURRENT CONDITIONS

With the trend toward energy efficiency, new products began to emerge. A joint venture between British, Belgian, and American companies built electric-powered taxis starting in 2000 for use in New York City. London's Zevco (Zero Emissions Vehicle Company) was the world's first company to launch the first fuel-cell powered taxi.

By 2002, Honda got in on the act, with natural gaspowered Civics joining fleets in Connecticut after a two year ban. By 2003, compressed natural gas was the clear winner in terms of passenger satisfaction, causing problems for cab companies that did not offer this option.

In an effort to compete with the rising popularity of other forms of transportation, taxi services in large markets began equipping their vehicles with televisions. Far more than providing entertainment for the passenger, the televisions were offering opportunities for advertising to an audience that can't change the channel. Future plans included interactivity, allowing passengers to check show times and purchase tickets.

In 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that New York City taxis may soon be the vehicles next in line for black boxes, due to their tendency to be involved in accidents.

INDUSTRY LEADERS

In 2001, Louisville Transportation Co. of Kentucky led the industry, with $589 million in sales and 500 employees. Second was Whittlessea Blue Cab Co. of Las Vegas, with $529 million in sales and 500 employees. Chicago-based Yellow Cab Co. was third with $42 million in sales and 100 employees. Yellow Cab Delaware Inc. came next with $25 million in sales, and SCSM Holdings Inc. of Stamford, Connecticut, rounded out the top five companies with $18 million in sales.

WORKFORCE

There were 3,086 taxi service establishments in 2001, employing a total of 30,281 workers. Until the mid-1970s, drivers were usually employees of cab companies, with salaried jobs and standard benefits. However, in the late 1970s most companies began hiring drivers as independent contractors. Under this arrangement, drivers paid a flat per-day fee to the company and paid for all expenses out of their take from fares but did not receive employee benefits such as insurance. In another, similar arrangement, some drivers earned a percentage of total fares, plus tips, which averaged 15 percent of a fare. Work hours varied, with full-time drivers often working as many as twelve hours a day, six days a week. Cab drivers' average salary was reported at $20,000-$40,000 a year in 1997.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 05:29 pm
How Boston does it:

http://www.massport.com/logan/getti_typeo_taxis.html


Quote:

Taxi Service from Boston Logan International Airport

Refusal of Passengers

A driver shall not refuse a passenger unless previously engaged, or unless under conditions such as those described in the following paragraph.

A driver may not discriminate based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, nor passenger destination. A driver is not required to transport: intoxicated persons, disorderly persons, passengers who are knowingly violating federal, state, or local law; or passengers whom the driver has just cause to have fear of personal safety or damage to the taxi.

Passengers With Disabilities

All taxicab drivers are required to accept any passenger who has a disability, including their service animal. Wheelchair accessible vehicles are available upon request at no additional charge. Call the Hackney Division of the Boston Police Department at 617-343-4475 for accessible taxi service.


Accordinig to this article on the Minneapolis-St Paul Airport website, the issue is a mute point since federal regulations regarding liquids have tightened.

http://www.mspairport.com/msp/appdocs/Releases/2006_10_11.html

Quote:
At the time discussion of the issue with the taxi industry began in May, cab drivers were refusing to transport customers with alcohol from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport 77 times per month, on average. However, recent changes in federal regulations now prohibit air travelers from taking most liquids - including alcoholic beverages - in quantities larger than three ounces through security checkpoints.

Since the federal liquids prohibition went into effect in August, far fewer people are noticeably carrying alcohol through airports or subsequently being refused service by taxi drivers.

"The scope of the problem has changed considerably since we began working on a two-toplight solution," Hamiel said. "My hope is that representatives from the airport taxi industry will work with us toward assessing these changes and promptly resolving this issue in the best interest of their customers. The bottom line is that no one should be denied taxi service simply because they have alcohol in their possession. That is the ultimate outcome we want to achieve."

The refusal-of-service issue stems from the expressed religious beliefs of some taxi drivers at MSP, who say transporting alcohol is forbidden in the Koran. Currently, taxi drivers who refuse fares on this basis forfeit their place in the airport taxi queue and return to the back of the line, in keeping with MAC Ordinance 102.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 10:59:31