Jury rules that pharmacist didn't discriminate when he denied morning-after pill

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/jury-rules-that-minnesota-pharmacist-did-not-discriminate-against-woman-when-he-denied-her-access-to-morning-after-pill/

by belltaco • 4 years ago

17 16 4 years ago

cbsnews.com

EddieDante3• 4 years ago

She should have brought a gun, and forced this asshole to put aside his self-righteousness and do the job for which he was being paid on pain of death. Give these fucking Christians who mistake mockery for persecution something to cry about.

planarhobbit• 4 years ago

Comments like these should result in at the very least a suspension, if not an outright ban. You’re calling for someone’s death quite liberally. Take a break from HN for your own sake.

EddieDante3• 4 years ago

That's dang's decision, and he is welcome to act accordingly. Until then I will speak from the heart; I honestly believe that women, LGBTQ people, non-white people, non-Christians, and neurodiverse people should arm themselves, learn tactics, and be prepared to enforce their human rights with violence -- since the law will not uphold them on their behalf.

speakfreely2• 4 years ago

Yeah, so probably most of us came here really hating the pharmacist but you've taken such a wildly extreme position that suddenly I'm concerned about the safety of the pharmacist more than the woman in question. Not good.

EddieDante3• 4 years ago

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." --Barry Goldwater

dang• 4 years ago

You can't do this here. I've banned the account.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

armchairhacker• 4 years ago

The jury on Friday found, however, that discrimination based on her sex had not occurred. But Badeaux and the pharmacy did cause Anderson emotional harm in the amount of $25,000.

Also this happened in 2019. Basically it seems like the pharmacist wasn’t discriminating her sex (i.e. would’ve denied a man the contraception except men don’t take birth control), but did end up paying.

Unfortunately there’s a big issue of not having easy and reasonable access to birth control and abortions which is overshadowed by laws trying to ban abortions in general. It doesn’t matter if abortion is legal in your state if you have to travel to another state anyways because there are no licensed clinics. If this person didn’t have to drive three hours to see another pharmacist maybe she wouldn’t have even cared to sue this one.

bmitc2• 4 years ago

How exactly does a pharmacist not go about breaking a state or federal law and/or not have their license revoked for refusing to fill a prescription, especially since they refused due to their own personal religious reasons?

Edit: Looked into it more, and it appears there are several states that legally protect a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription based upon personal religious reasons. There are even some states that allow the pharmacist to confiscate the prescription, requiring the person to get another one (if it was paper only). What the hell is wrong with people...

badrabbit3• 4 years ago

Whatever your opinion may be, he did not sale for some and not others therefore it isn't discrimination.

There should be a law that an employee of a store open to the public may not refuse to items the store is displaying as for sale. No need for debate about morality, a law is missing so get one passed. Alternatively, a store may have its business license revoked for refusing to sell an item displayed as for sale, at least that might force them to call managers or other employees to do the checkout.

bmitc2• 4 years ago

Maybe it's not discrimination on sex, although that's a tough sell despite the jury's ruling, but it sure seems like religious discrimination or something along those lines. Because at the core, he didn't want to fill the prescription because her medical needs somehow offended his personal religious beliefs.

But I don't think it should have anything to do with opinion or discrimination. The fact that a pharmacist can legally, in some states, ignore a doctor's order for medicine for personal reasons is well beyond anything I would consider reasonable.

verdverm2• 4 years ago

There should be a law that an employee of a store open to the public may not refuse to items the store is displaying as for sale.

In what ways might this have unintended consequences? A good example to think through is alcohol and intoxicated people, and more generalized, a belligerent customer. But, coming back around to the pharmacist, we have an opioid problem which was largely enhanced by bad pharmacies, but this is also where it can be reined in. Some good pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions because they thought something nefarious was up with pain killers and drug dealing.

h2odragon• 4 years ago

Doctors prescribed morphine to my Dad when he was close to his end, he was staying at home and not expected to leave again kinda thing. I had to drive around 3 cities hunting for a pharmacist that would fill the prescription; after getting a physical paper copy signed by the doctor because thats not a "phone it in" drug.

Drove all day on that one. They'd say "sure no problem" on the phone then "oh we can't do this" when I showed up. This was a decade ago, but nobody involved or that ive told this story to seemed to think it odd.

Certainly no one has ever suggested to me that a pharmacist refusing to distribute pain meds for someone who needed them was a political act that required society and the mechanisms of state to become involved. Is this just misconception on my part, or is it "some drugs must be available and others can be pharmacist's discretion?"

Jury rules that pharmacist didn't discriminate when he denied morning-after pill

Related Stories