Patronizing businesses based on corporate beliefs

[anriana]

Semi-related to a topic in CS, it seemed that some people thought it was foolish to refuse to patronize businesses based on the political candidate supported by the business. I am not aware of any major businesses supporting specific candidates, but what about other political aspects? For example: Curves donating money to pro-life organizations or certain pharmacies stocking/not stocking EC. I've always made an effort to patronize the corporations that support my beliefs in these regards; do people view that as foolish? Why?

[Amethyst Hunter]

I don't think it's crazy at all. There are certain businesses that I refuse to support, knowing that they do more harm than good in the long run. I will *never* give money to or support:

- any anti-choice organization (including Curves)
- Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A or any other business that explicitly promotes and encourages dominionism and hardline religion abuse (HL and Chick-fil-A both have a history, in fact, of not only supporting dominionism and hostile religious abuse in the States but also in places like South America)
- any Republican organization (being that that party has been almost completely hijacked by said dominionists and anti-choice groups)
- any religious-affiliated organization that tacitly sanctions child abuse and misogyny (aka the Catholic Church)

Those are just a few off the top of my head. In addition, this is not to say that every single religious-related organization is bad, but it definitely sets off alarm bells in my head when religion enters the picture, and I have to do some digging first to be sure that this is a legit group and I can trust them with my money.

What WILL get donations from me:

- animal shelters/adoption organizations
- battered womens/childrens shelters
- people down on their luck for healthcare (like those little canisters you see in stores sometimes about a local family that has a very ill member and has trouble with hospital bills)
- places like Planned Parenthood

And so on.

[Boozy]

I don't think its ridiculous at all.

However, boycotts are difficult. Unless very well-organized, they're rarely effective. A handful of transnationals produce so much of what we consume. Monsanto and Nestle, for example, are horrible companies. But I unknowingly buy their products, and therefore support their actions in the developing world, every single day. Their brand isn't necessarily on the items I buy.

Smaller businesses get hit harder by boycotts.

I use my own personal spending as an extension of my conscience. I live my life in keeping with my values, not necessarily because I feel I'm making a difference, but because I don't want to be a hypocrite.

[Rapscallion]

Of note should be that most businesses (medium size) will try to side with the probable winner of political struggles in order to gain more when the results come in. The large businesses tend to work to get their favoured client into office rather than shilly-shallying around. Small guys get stuffed either way.

Not that I'm a cynic or anything.

Rapscallion

[DesignFox]

I think the difference, too, is that the person in the original thread in question went in and asked an employee a very personal question.

You wouldn't go to the mall and ask the Macy's employee who they are voting for and then make your purchase based on that.

Not to mention the fact that one employee may support one candidate, but the next employee backs another candidate.

The logic is inherently silly.

That's a far cry from say, not buying [company's] product because you know they dump toxic chemicals in the lake.

[Seshat]

Exactly.

We try to live according to our beliefs as well, which includes being somewhat careful which companies our money goes to. But there's a huge difference between doing that and harassing an innocent clerk about who they personally and individually intend to vote for.

For one thing, I firmly believe in the secret ballot. Such a question is just plain rude in a secret-ballot society. I'm the primary election researcher in my family, and I don't ask even my family who they intend to vote for - I just ask them which issues are most important to them and provide them with the available candidates' stated policies on those issues. What they do with that information is their own business.

[daleduke17]

Amethyst, what does Hobby Lobby do? I've never thought that Hobby Lobby was active in anything other than selling hobby materials.

[Sylvia727]

- any anti-choice organization (including Curves)

Curves is not anti-choice. The owner is pro-life, but boycotting Curves because of how Heavin chooses to donate his money is no different than boycotting a store because of how an employee votes in a primary. Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/curves.asp) says that the founder donates his personal money, not the company's money. In addition, Seattle PI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/paynter/180078_paynter30.html) says that he donates his money to pro-life groups, not anti-choice groups. The clinics help pregnant women find alternatives to abortion and provide support for their pregnancies.

Even if I favored abortion, I still wouldn't find anything wrong in this conduct. An "employee" of Curves has a political position. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant to your business relation with the company. Heavin's position happens to be doing something constructive about abortion, helping people instead of hurting them.

I don't know much about the other groups you mentioned, but it is important to draw distinctions carefully.

[rahmota]

what does Hobby Lobby do? I've never thought that Hobby Lobby was active in anything other than selling hobby materials
From what I recall without googling them they support family values and other somewhat religious activities/organizations. one of the reasons they are closed on sunday (similar to chic-fil-a) so their employees can spend time with their families (as it says on the local store's door).

You are right in that there needs to be a distinction in the stnad of the employee and the company. when something comes up like chic-fil-a saying we proudly support family values (or whatever) then thats pretty certain its the company doing that. When you have one employee saying somethign like god bless you or somethign then thats not the entire company.

And yeah people sometimes support a company not because they want or dont want to but because keeping track of which mega corp owns or makes this or that product is rather difficult to do. The best thign a person can do is vote with their conscience, live their life to the best of their abilities as an example of what they believe and do the least harm they can.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Tried to reply to this several days ago but kept having posting problems. Think I've figured it out now though (with the help of a couple of kindly mods).

what does Hobby Lobby do? I've never thought that Hobby Lobby was active in anything other than selling hobby materials.

On the surface, they might appear to be nothing more than a simple Christian-based business (given their penchant for closing on Sundays and playing Christian contemporary music like many legitimately Christian-based stores do).

However, Hobby Lobby's founder has been associated in funding directly related to Jerry Falwell, and sponsoring dominionist-friendly "charities" (in which said 'charity' is used as a front for promoting dominionism and essentially blackmailing needy people into converting; there were reports of this kind of dirty deed-doing going on during the chaos of Hurricane Katrina in NOLA).

There are also unconfirmed reports that HL refuses to hire non-dominionist-friendly employees (this has also been said to happen with Chick-fil-A - which, of note, is associated with Focus On The Family - yep, those lovely folks that say 9/11 is the fault of feminists and gay people and people who are friends with either of said groups). How they manage to accomplish that, I don't know (being that it's technically illegal to hire/fire based on religious preferences), but we all know that shady practitioners can and do find their sneaky ways around specific regulations.

Curves is not anti-choice. Snopes says that the founder donates his personal money, not the company's money. In addition, Seattle PI says that he donates his money to pro-life groups, not anti-choice groups. The clinics help pregnant women find alternatives to abortion and provide support for their pregnancies...Heavin's position happens to be doing something constructive about abortion, helping people instead of hurting them.

Actually...I'm sorry to say that's not entirely true - regardless of where the money's coming from.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/12/16/132516/73 - This piece lists several major *explicitly* dominionist/theocracy-happy businesses, and it counts Curves as being one of those to avoid. The author (whom I don't know personally, but can put you in contact with should you decide to investigate further - which I would recommend to anyone concerned about this) - is a former dominionist walkaway and survivor of extreme religion-based abuse who has given such accounts on a walkaways' forum, so needless to say he/she is VERY familiar with dominionist tactics.

Among warning signs that Curves IS very much anti-choice and not helping lower abortion rates constructively is the fact that they are linked to and helping to fund KNOWN extremist threats like the infamous Operation Rescue/Operation Save America (these are the people who are only too happy to bomb Planned Parenthoods and stalk / kill medical staff/patients), who are known to associate with anti-American/anti-government militias (yes, the kinds that *advocate* hardcore violence against government targets they despise).

OR head Randall Terry has *flat-out* said that he wants to establish a theocracy in this country (States) where *everyone* who is not their brand of extremist WILL be forcibly converted, imprisoned and even executed outright (depending on their level of hatred towards certain groups - needless to say, if you're a homosexual, you could basically kiss your ass goodbye in such a theocracy, and if you're female, you'll literally be forced to breed Fundie Nut Warriors For God until you die/they decide to kill you off).

It's reported that not even pro-life Catholic and some Christian evangelical groups will touch this bunch with a thousand-foot pole (and in fact most if not all the mainstream groups that call themselves pro-life will not have anything to do with anti-choice extremists that go around stalking and committing violence), so I'd say that's pretty bad. (Another important note: most legitimate pro-lifers, though they may be personally opposed to abortion, won't have an issue (mostly) with birth control; many anti-choice groups would like to see all contraceptives eliminated and banned and are in fact focusing a good deal of their efforts on this in recent years, what with rogue pharmacists thinking they can play God with someone else's medications; of even scarier note is that some dominionist groups are *deliberately* training their people to go into pharmacology for the express purpose of blocking women's access to contraceptives! This problem is severe enough that a couple of states have passed or are trying to pass legislation that *requires* all pharmacies to fulfill their job duty obligations, or to refer the customer to someplace that will - Illinois is one such state that has this law (thank God).)

Curves also is a sponsor of the infamous 700 Club on television, where Pat Robertson's rot is spewed on a regular basis.

In regards to the so-called "pregnancy crisis centers" - I DO NOT trust them and would be EXTREMELY wary of these, if only because the majority of them are deliberately set up and run by explicitly anti-choice/pro-dominionist groups that employ purposely deceiving tactics. Among these charmers is, again, our old 'friend' Operation Rescue, which has a history of buying up buildings (including clinics which dispense birth control and/or abortion services) and evicting the previous tenants, then setting up shop right next door (in some cases literally right next door) to a women's clinic or Planned Parenthood and labeling themselves in such a way so as to confuse women who want the PP (and who may not necessarily be going for an abortion, but birth control and/or medical exams instead (which comprises the vast majority of PP's services) - all the better to attempt indoctrination and harassment).

A few centers have even been known to go beyond their anti-abortion propaganda by *stalking* women who have gone to legitimate clinics and who have had abortions, going so far to track them (license plates as obvious ID, for a start), contact them and then harass them over the phone (free guesses as to the kinds of hateful bile they spew at these women, and the first two don't count).

They also have a history of falsely suggesting or offering a full range of reproductive health services - the same services that PPs do - but what happens more often than not is that the only "service" getting offered is anti-abortion 'counseling' with a heavy dose of religious-tripping guilt/judgmental attitude. Most damning, these places will also refuse or fail to provide comprehensive contraceptive information - the very thing that will help prevent abortions to begin with.

These centers will also make exaggerated claims of financial assistance/healthcare, and then not only fail to follow through on these promises, but also have been known to pressure women into either living at dominionist-operated 'halfway houses' where extremist restrictions apply, and/or giving up the resulting full-termed pregnancy to an explicitly dominionist household (of which several have been spotlighted for extensive abuse - 'boot camps' for youth like Love In Action have come under heavy fire for reports of such, not the least of which includes beatings, total isolation from secular society (dommies are big on building a parallel 'world' where everything is ruled by theocracy; think the kind of abuse that was just highlighted with the raid on that cult in Texas), and even sexual abuse). Essentially, this is literally *contracted* indoctrination into a very likely abusive situation, and I would fear greatly for any children with the unfortunate luck to wind up in such horrifying straits.

I would like to clarify that I don't have any problem with *legitimate* clinics that actually do help women who have decided to carry to term and that don't pile on the ugliness I described above. (I seem to recall that someone on CS has worked at such a place in the past, so YMMV.) The key point, however, is that it MUST 100% be the woman's choice, without any external malicious influence, and I don't trust many of these so-called crisis centers not to have a bad habit of engaging in deception and/or misinformation for the express purpose of basically bullying women into a kind of submission and then turning around and brainwashing/abusing kids for their own sick purposes.

Going back on-topic, to add to the list of businesses I refuse to patronize, here's another for folks to avoid (and which I'd avoid just for sheer expense alone): Oberweis Dairy. Its founder, Jim Oberweis, has a lengthy failure of a political 'career' (including a recent defeat in a special state election), in which he has flat-out said he would work to defund places like Planned Parenthood (not all of whom provide abortions) and backs the Iraq fiasco 100% *despite* the fact that the *majority* of Americans are ever-increasingly pissed off about that. To give you an idea of how badly Oberweis is viewed even in his own party, he was soundly defeated by a *Democrat* candidate in a historically *heavily* Republican district - the FIRST time *in over 20 years* that such a feat has ever happened.

[Sylvia727]

Amethyst - First of all, I'm not disputing how scary dominism and extremists are. As a person, their terrorism tactics scare me, and as a woman, their 'quiver of arrows' / 'living incubator' policies piss me the **** off.

But I'm not seeing any solid evidence that Heavin donates to them or is connected to them in any way. In fact, the article you linked to cites a source that comes off as very pro-Curves. There's no proof or even an actionable suspicion that he's involved with terrorists.

Heavin has said that he's donated to clinics that discourage abortion, but that's not the same thing. According to the source of the article you linked to, a Planned Parenthood rep, has said that the organizations meet a need of the community. Many impoverished women receive pre- and post-natal care from them that they otherwise could not afford.

The whole circus was stirred up by two journalists who did not check with legitimate sources and exagerrated or lied in order to sell papers. And it worked. People are boycotting Curves because they were told its founder donates Curves profits to religious terrorists, when he really donates his personal money to pro-life clinics.

Just because something's pro-life does NOT mean that it's anti-women. Many women refuse to have abortions, and they deserve to have those options, as I'm sure you'd agree. And no, I haven't contributed any money to these types of organizations, preferring to associate with ones that have philosophies closer to my own. I'm just sick of the knee-jerk many people have that pro-life = anti-women.

[Amethyst Hunter]

But I'm not seeing any solid evidence that Heavin donates to them or is connected to them in any way. In fact, the article you linked to cites a source that comes off as very pro-Curves. There's no proof or even an actionable suspicion that he's involved with terrorists.

I took a look at that Snopes article again, and caught something I missed initially: http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/articles/articles/decline-pp-central-tx.htm (Warning: Site may be triggering for walkaways)

OR is trumpeting this news on their own site. Unless there's newsbits out there that I've missed, has Heavin ever come out and stated publicly that he and/or his organization will have *nothing* to do with OR and their affiliates (which are claiming that he gave them his stamp of approval)? If it is a false story, and libel laws are applicable, then why is this up on OR's site?

That OR would be gleefully announcing such news is disturbing to me; hence I would still recommend boycotting Curves until it's proven beyond all doubt that they are in no way associated with bona fide domestic terrorists. Even if no money at all is being exchanged here, I still wouldn't trust anybody who might be proven to have in some way endorsed such groups. It makes me wonder (and worry) what else they might be inclined to support (or not support - as in, birth control access)... :(

Just because something's pro-life does NOT mean that it's anti-women. Many women refuse to have abortions, and they deserve to have those options, as I'm sure you'd agree...I'm just sick of the knee-jerk many people have that pro-life = anti-women.

By the same token, those of us who are pro-choice get the reaction that "pro-choice = murderers." 'Pro-choice' means exactly that: the freedom to choose ANY option, be it contraceptives, adoption, abortion, or anything else, as per the individual's personal beliefs and circumstances. It would be just as wrong to force a woman who doesn't want an abortion to have one (as they do in places like China) as it is to deny a woman who wants an abortion that choice and access.

The reason that many people (including me) automatically go on suspicion when something claims to be "pro-life" is *because* of the nuts that claim to be pro-life and then prove that they're anything but. Anti-choice groups wield a frightening amount of power in the country and they know it; all you need do is look at how this current assministration's handled things in regards to sexual education and resources.

It's not even safe enough to say that you (generic you), as an individual, are pro-choice (unless you're in a group of like minds), because sure as donuts come powdered someone who disagrees with you will leap down your throat and possibly even threaten you for it. You NEVER EVER hear of pro-choice people or groups committing vandalism, violence or oppression towards pro-life individuals/groups; it's always been the other way around. (And I'm inclined to doubt that there are any such instances of pro-choice hostilities; 1) because no pro-choice group has ever been shown to have associated with terrorist activities, and 2) because there'd be a major uproar if it were discovered that there were places forcing pregnant women off the streets and going "hey you should have an abortion and we're gonna give you one whether you like it or not")

Like I said, I don't have a problem with places that don't try to shovel any malicious agendas at women. If someone doesn't want to have an abortion but needs specific resources, that's fine. I just don't trust the assumption that "pro-life" automatically equals "good," because too many malicious people have shown that it's become more of a code for "forcing women to behave how WE think they should." :(

[DesignFox]

Wow Amethyst. That is one disturbing link you posted there.

[Sylvia727]

OR is trumpeting this news on their own site. Unless there's newsbits out there that I've missed, has Heavin ever come out and stated publicly that he and/or his organization will have *nothing* to do with OR and their affiliates (which are claiming that he gave them his stamp of approval)? If it is a false story, and libel laws are applicable, then why is this up on OR's site?

I would allow the possibility that OR is making this up. They certainly don't mind breaking other laws, and a good lawyer could tie up a libel suit for years and get them off with a slap on the wrist. The lawsuit would also be free publicity for them. In the meantime, OR gets a celebrity endorsement to lend authenticity to their cause.

I thought I had read a statement from him explicitly denying the OR claims and reiterating that it was only the three programs mentioned in the snopes article, but now I can't find it. If he hasn't explicitly denied it, then I would find that very suspicious as well. He probably isn't suing OR for libel because it would just stir up further bad publicity.

That OR would be gleefully announcing such news is disturbing to me; hence I would still recommend boycotting Curves until it's proven beyond all doubt that they are in no way associated with bona fide domestic terrorists.

I assume you mean until Curves is acquited beyond all doubt? Would you still boycott Curves if it was proven that Heavin donated his personal money? Just curious. It's your prerogitive where you spend your money.

The reason that many people (including me) automatically go on suspicion when something claims to be "pro-life" is *because* of the nuts that claim to be pro-life and then prove that they're anything but.

If a guy wearing the robes of a Buddhist monk came up to me and punched me in the face, I'd be tempted to steer away from Buddhists. Even though real Buddhists are pacificists, I'd remember the charlatan who punched me.

It's fine to go on suspicion; in fact, it's rather unhealthy to take everything at face value. But I'd hate to think I was missing out on some friendships or great company just because someone is a different ideology than me.

You NEVER EVER hear of pro-choice people or groups committing vandalism, violence or oppression towards pro-life individuals/groups; it's always been the other way around.

You NEVER EVER hear of pro-life people or groups committing vandalism, violence or oppression towards pro-choice individuals/groups, either. In fact, if you can find me one example of a pro-lifer committing crimes against a pro-choicer, I will cede you victory of this debate. And I'm not being sarcastic or flippant; my entire argument is based on the presumption that pro-lifers shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as anti-choicers. If I'm wrong, then I'd like to know about it.

We pro-lifers don't like the anti-choicers any more than you pro-choicers do; in fact, some of us dislike them more. They make our peaceful and constructive efforts look similiar to violent and destructive efforts.

[Boozy]

Would you still boycott Curves if it was proven that Heavin donated his personal money?

You've mentioned personal money several times now, but I don't necessarily differentiate.

After all, where does Heavin's personal wealth come from if not from his investment in Curves? This company is not non-profit, and he is no volunteer.

[Sylvia727]

You've mentioned personal money several times now, but I don't necessarily differentiate.

After all, where does Heavin's personal wealth come from if not from his investment in Curves? This company is not non-profit, and he is no volunteer.

The arguement has been made that his earnings from Curves are no different than a paycheck, and he is no different than an average stockholder. I was trying to sound out other people's takes on this philosophy.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I would allow the possibility that OR is making this up. They certainly don't mind breaking other laws, and a good lawyer could tie up a libel suit for years and get them off with a slap on the wrist. The lawsuit would also be free publicity for them. In the meantime, OR gets a celebrity endorsement to lend authenticity to their cause.

This is very true, although assuming that if Heavin is avoiding them like the dog turds they are, it's possible that OR would hit him with a SLAPP technique in order to keep mooching off his celebrity, and maybe that's why he hasn't come out against them? (to the best of my knowledge, anyway) This isn't an uncommon thing - SLAPPs have become so problematic that several states (including Illinois) have either passed laws against them or have laws pending.

(For those who may not know: a SLAPP is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. What this means is that the anti-choice groups will sue an individual or group for the express purpose of tying their money up in court fees and garnering whatever's left over for their own coffers. In general, a SLAPP user will sue to the point of bankrupting the other party, or at least attempt to get them to settle out of court (which will still incur heavy monetary damages); this has the intended effect of silencing the opposition, thus removing the obstacle they pose to the anti-choice group.)

I assume you mean until Curves is acquited beyond all doubt? Would you still boycott Curves if it was proven that Heavin donated his personal money? Just curious. It's your prerogitive where you spend your money.

I'm not a gym person so I don't go to gyms anyway. But if I was, and Curves was proven beyond all doubt to not have any involvement with extremists, then I'd give them a fair shake.

As far as personal funds go...IF it was shown that Curves was not affiliated with extremist groups BUT Heavin was giving money to, say, any of the mainstream pro-life groups...I have to admit I would be hesitant about going there, for the same reasons which I stated in my earlier post.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for lowering the abortion rate - but IMO it has to be done a certain way and from my observation, most pro-lifers want an all-out ban on abortion and the holy grail of Abstinence favored over things like contraceptive use. That won't go over so well. (Not that there's anything wrong with abstinence - I'm celibate by choice myself - but it's not exactly applicable to, say, married couples or abused women who may not have the choice to refuse their batterer's advances) The best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to educate people *thoroughly*, give them free range to *all* options, and try as best as we can to reserve abortion for emergencies like "oh shit, the contraceptive failed!", rape, or severely endangered woman's life. The thing with abortion is that it will *never* be eliminated entirely - it's been going on since time began and always will; the best we can do is lower that rate, and educating people is the best way IMO to do that.

But I'd hate to think I was missing out on some friendships or great company just because someone is a different ideology than me.

Very true. I have a relative by marriage whom I love dearly...and she considers herself to be pro-life. I have my theories as to why, but we're both aware of the other's stance (if not the reasons for it) and we sort of gingerly 'dance' around the subject if it comes up (which isn't often, thankfully). Believe me, I have to bite my tongue very very hard sometimes, because I'd rather keep the relationship intact - that's more important to me and we both know neither of us is going to change the other's mind anyway.

We pro-lifers don't like the anti-choicers any more than you pro-choicers do; in fact, some of us dislike them more. They make our peaceful and constructive efforts look similiar to violent and destructive efforts.

Would you be willing to stand (figuratively or literally speaking) side by side with pro-choicers to a) stop the extremists, and b) work towards a workable solution to the problem of too many unwanted pregnancies? (It's okay to say no, and I'll explain why in a minute) It's not enough to just say "we denounce the actions of X group", because to the anti's anybody who disagrees with them on any bit of their ideology is automatically an enemy anyway - but they have levels of enemies, and the ones that are going to get the bulk of their attention are the pro-choicers and the Planned Parenthoods and all.

Now, what is IMO totally understandable is why a lot of people don't want to directly confront these groups (and this is why I said I understand if a pro-life person isn't interested in dealing with pro-choice people) - a LOT of them have a history of extensive harassment and violence to the point of shooting people on sight. (Legal limits are still their preferred main tactic, if only because it lets them sneak in their ideology before people can recognize it for what it is, but there are always loose cannons out there who are only too happy to take matters into their own hands.) To the extremists, there is NO room for compromise whatsoever: it's their way, nothing else.

To give you an example of this, there was a huge controversy surrounding a Planned Parenthood last year that opened in an area I'm familiar with (There's a thread on this in Fratching somewhere, actually). This PP offers abortion services (which not all PPs do), so naturally that got the attention of a major anti-choice group (which, ironically, is based in the same area as the PP!) Some of the pro-life people that were polled said that although they personally did not like abortion, they understood that there was a serious need for the other majority of the PP services (and there is - one county in particular has seen its STD rates skyrocket in the past 5 years) and that with that one exception, they were otherwise okay with having the PP around - they were actually MORE worried about the effects the protesting anti's could have on local homes. (The head anti openly said he wanted to get permits from the city to picket (read: harass and intimidate) PP employees' *homes*, so yeah, we're dealing with a pretty nasty bunch here)

The anti's want this PP shut down, no questions asked - they've flat-out said so numerous times. They aren't interested in preventing or treating STDs, or lowering the unwanted pregnancy rate, or helping women who are financially on the skids getting much-needed exams and treatment. They're even against *contraceptives* - Head Anti also has been noted in print as having said that contraception is the same thing as abortion (it's not, and no legitimate doctor would ever say so). And with their history of harassment - they've already tried a SLAPP and continue to attempt to tie up things in court; the PP's opening was actually *delayed* because of their crap - I would not be surprised in the least when somewhere down the line the worse behavior (vandalism, butyric acid attacks, bombings, shootings) starts to make itself known.

The local police department, God bless 'em, has shown a ready presence at each and every protest event that's been held at the site to date (and yes, the antis HAVE been known to direct their violent attacks towards law enforcement; the chief of police even said in print that the protestors were deliberately trying to provoke them in order to attempt lawsuits. One particularly frightening violent tactic is for antis to set up bombs with a delayed trigger - these explosives are set in order to go off in a series: once to cause the initial damage to a clinic, and again to take out any 'rapid responders'...like your medical emergency personnel and your law enforcement officials).

With that kind of menace, I wouldn't blame anybody, be they pro-choice or pro-life, for not wanting to put either themselves or their loved ones under that kind of threat. Clinic escorts alone have to hear all sorts of vile things said to them on a *daily* basis, nevermind the stuff these people will say to the woman herself. I am seriously in awe of such people's bravery, because they are literally risking their professional reputations and their lives to help women in dire straits.

The pro-choice side DOES need more pro-life folks who are willing to work with them (and there are actually quite a few pro-choice people who for personal reasons disagree with abortion but believe in letting people dictate their own choices (as an aside, I wonder what that makes them - both pro-choice and pro-life?)); the problem is that neither side is ever going to agree on certain sticking points and what happens is everybody gets sucked into the morality quicksand instead of being able to get things done.

To me, the ideal setup would be both bunches getting together, going "okay we all disagree on point X but we also all agree on points Y (the need to educate people) and points Z (the need to stop the extremists from wanking off), so let's just focus on Y and Z and see what we can do there." (Which is a lot easier said than done, I know)

[rahmota]

Just wanting to respond here to this and then I'll back out as Amethyst seems to have this one under control here.

It's fine to go on suspicion; in fact, it's rather unhealthy to take everything at face value. This is true but also one shoudl not live such a paranoid life that they dont trust anything. A nice middle ground of trust but verify usually works out the best. I mean to use your example a guy in buddist robes come sup and smacks me upside the head. I might stay a bit more defensive the next time one comes walking up but I'm not gonna freak out, premtively strike him or ignore him either.

But I'd hate to think I was missing out on some friendships or great company just because someone is a different ideology than me Well I have to disagree on this. It all depends on how far apart the ideologies are. I get along well with some people that are not overly pro firearms ownership as their idelogy is they dont want want but dont care if I have one. Someone who was rabidly anti-firearms ownership would wind up getting the boot out of my life. Same way on most subjects. I'll tolerate a person who disagrees with me up to a certain point but if that disagreement is too far apart, too radical, or too diametrically opposed to what I personally believe in then it would be for the best for all involved if we didnt try and pretend to be friends.

[Sylvia727]

This is true but also one shoudl not live such a paranoid life that they dont trust anything. A nice middle ground of trust but verify usually works out the best. I mean to use your example a guy in buddist robes come sup and smacks me upside the head. I might stay a bit more defensive the next time one comes walking up but I'm not gonna freak out, premtively strike him or ignore him either.

Completely agree. Unfortunately, some people see a psycho calling himself "pro-life" blow up a building, and then jump all over the next person they meet who calls themself "pro-life". It'd be great if pro-lifers didn't get the flak intended for anti-choicers, but...*shrug* Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice?

Well I have to disagree on this. It all depends on how far apart the ideologies are.

Well, sure. One of my roomies is pro-choice, and I'm pro-life. We'd both like to see the vast number of abortions eliminated. She because it's expensive, often unhealthy, and in many cases could have been prevented. Me because of all of the above, but also because I fear the possibility of human life, or a human soul, being destroyed. We try not to discuss the morality of it and instead focus on possible solutions. It works out well. Another person spouts off hateful anti-choice rhetoric at every opportunity, and I avoid him as much as humanly possible. Even though ideologically one might think me better friends with the anti-choicer, the pro-choicer is a much better person.

This is very true, although assuming that if Heavin is avoiding them like the dog turds they are, it's possible that OR would hit him with a SLAPP technique in order to keep mooching off his celebrity, and maybe that's why he hasn't come out against them? (to the best of my knowledge, anyway) This isn't an uncommon thing - SLAPPs have become so problematic that several states (including Illinois) have either passed laws against them or have laws pending.

It's a distinct posibility. 'S one reason why I'm reserving judgement on the man.

As far as personal funds go...IF it was shown that Curves was not affiliated with extremist groups BUT Heavin was giving money to, say, any of the mainstream pro-life groups...I have to admit I would be hesitant about going there, for the same reasons which I stated in my earlier post.

I can understand that. I tend to choose options with less negative connotations, too. I wouldn't shop at an anti-choice-associated company any more than I would shop at an (issue I'm rightwing on)-associated company.


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for lowering the abortion rate - but IMO it has to be done a certain way

<snip>

The best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to educate people *thoroughly*, give them free range to *all* options, and try as best as we can to reserve abortion for emergencies like "oh shit, the contraceptive failed!", rape, or severely endangered woman's life. The thing with abortion is that it will *never* be eliminated entirely - it's been going on since time began and always will; the best we can do is lower that rate, and educating people is the best way IMO to do that.

Right beside you there. I'd like to see legislation enacted that would reserve abortions for emergencies, but unfortunately I know that this law could never get through our legal system uncorrupted. I suppose that's the main place I differ from pro-choicers; I don't believe that someone, having had perfect access to other options and education, should have the 'choice' to destroy a potential human life just for her own laziness/selfishness.

Would you be willing to stand (figuratively or literally speaking) side by side with pro-choicers to a) stop the extremists, and b) work towards a workable solution to the problem of too many unwanted pregnancies?

Am and have to (b). I'm involved in some university campus efforts to educate and provide access to birth control, even though the founders and most of the volunteers in these groups believe abortion is a viable alternative. To me, that doesn't undermine the good these groups do. When I'm out of college, I plan to find other organizations I can volunteer at, and the ones that provide abortions will not necessarily be stricken from my list. Keep in mind, though, that I'm a more practical pro-lifer. Many other pro-lifers tolerate PPs and support non-abortion birth control clinics.

It's not enough to just say "we denounce the actions of X group", because to the anti's anybody who disagrees with them on any bit of their ideology is automatically an enemy anyway - but they have levels of enemies, and the ones that are going to get the bulk of their attention are the pro-choicers and the Planned Parenthoods and all.

If I ever become an influential pro-lifer, I promise to release a press statement that says that anti-choice efforts are evil to humanity and destructive to pro-life efforts. Other than that, I don't know what you mean. It's not the fault of me or my ideology that I'm not first on the anti-choicers' hit list. Perhaps I'm misreading this? What would you like to see from rational pro-lifers?

The pro-choice side DOES need more pro-life folks who are willing to work with them (and there are actually quite a few pro-choice people who for personal reasons disagree with abortion but believe in letting people dictate their own choices (as an aside, I wonder what that makes them - both pro-choice and pro-life?)); the problem is that neither side is ever going to agree on certain sticking points and what happens is everybody gets sucked into the morality quicksand instead of being able to get things done.

To me, the ideal setup would be both bunches getting together, going "okay we all disagree on point X but we also all agree on points Y (the need to educate people) and points Z (the need to stop the extremists from wanking off), so let's just focus on Y and Z and see what we can do there." (Which is a lot easier said than done, I know)

I'd love to see an organization like that. I think it would quickly get polarized towards one side or the other unless the founders kept a tight leash on political rhetoric, but I would definitely join an org like that. I don't anticipate having the energy or resources to found a group like that in the next five years, nor would I have the tact necessary to keep the hotheads on both sides from tearing each other's throats out.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice?

Right on with you there. :) Unfortunately, there are always assholes that ruin it for everybody... :(

Me because of all of the above, but also because I fear the possibility of human life, or a human soul, being destroyed.

Truthfully?

I don't know whether or not abortion is a sin, as some people believe. I don't claim to know what God's exact will is, or even whether or not there IS a God. (I'm agnostic) I would much rather err on the side of caution (aka things like birth control)...but because of certain factors (which I've gone into great length here and elsewhere), I do believe that there are times when abortion may well be the best case scenario. Obviously it's not right for everyone facing an unwanted pregnancy, but for some women, it might be. And I don't see those women as being bad for it in any way - they know their situations best, and I know that if (God forbid) I was in their shoes I would want at least the same basic courtesy and leeway extended to me. I figure if it is a sin, and there is a God, that God will deal with the situation in his own way.

I DO agree that abortion should not be used as primary birth control; however, it should be noted that the women who do this do it only because they had little to no access to basic education and birth control resources to avoid abortion (almost always because they're poor - some of the most rural areas are truly frightening in terms of lack of education and resources). I'm inclined to doubt that most if any women take the decision to have an abortion lightly.

I suppose that's the main place I differ from pro-choicers; I don't believe that someone, having had perfect access to other options and education, should have the 'choice' to destroy a potential human life just for her own laziness/selfishness.

It boils down to basic autonomy. If, assuming that a woman has had perfect access to resources to prevent pregnancy, acts responsibly, is not raped, but doesn't want children (either at all or at a particular point in her life) and winds up pregnant from being in a relationship...what do you do with that woman if she decides she wants an abortion? You would literally have to force her into prison until she gave birth - and that basically says that women have no rights to their own bodies, they're just property and aren't allowed full rights like the other half of the human race (aka men). And that, I will never agree with - even if a female happened to act in an irresponsible manner. Stupid? Sure. But IMO forcing her to carry to term creates more problems than it's worth: you take away the woman's basic right to personal autonomy, and you raise the risk of a child being born into a situation where he/she isn't wanted and may well be abused because of it. Nobody wins there. :(

As far as 'potential' goes, I will agree up front that this makes me sound cold, but I can't find any energy to get worked up about an embryo that isn't at viability (meaning, it could survive outside the womb on its own) when there are so many people who are already here and suffering. That's another issue pro-choicers have with a lot of pro-lifers - some of us (generic us) see it as "they only care until the baby gets born, then it's tough luck and screw you." To me, there's a big difference between an infant and an embryo. They're both human, yes, but one only has potential, and potential is not the same thing to me as actually *being*, if that makes sense.

I'm involved in some university campus efforts to educate and provide access to birth control, even though the founders and most of the volunteers in these groups believe abortion is a viable alternative. To me, that doesn't undermine the good these groups do. When I'm out of college, I plan to find other organizations I can volunteer at, and the ones that provide abortions will not necessarily be stricken from my list.

On behalf of all pro-choicers and myself, thank you for taking on this effort. I mean that sincerely. :)

If I ever become an influential pro-lifer, I promise to release a press statement that says that anti-choice efforts are evil to humanity and destructive to pro-life efforts. Other than that, I don't know what you mean. It's not the fault of me or my ideology that I'm not first on the anti-choicers' hit list. Perhaps I'm misreading this? What would you like to see from rational pro-lifers?

I might not have worded it well, so I apologize if it sounded like I was nitpicking you.

None of what the antis do is your fault, or the fault of rational pro-lifers. What bothers me is that there seems to be a lot of 'silence' on the rational pro-life side every time something like a PP protest or such comes out, or a violent act erupts. Words (as in denouncement) alone are not going to make extremists stop or go away - they need to have it hammered home that their terrorism is NOT acceptable and will NOT be tolerated anymore. That includes their manipulation of the justice system to block women's access to all range of options, be it through SLAPPs or sneakily-worded bills that on the surface might appear to do good but actually help pave the way for more extreme laws that worsen things (I believe there's one such petition pending in Colorado wherein the bill might initially appear to restrict abortion to a specific period, but technically enforced, it would literally include and outlaw *contraception* - a dangerous precedent, if such were to go through. Sneaky bills have also been attempted in South Dakota last year where the governor banned *all* abortion in the state outright as a direct challenge; voters later tossed that measure out on its ass because the bill made no exceptions for rape, incest or threat to the woman's health/life).

I'm fine with someone not believing in and not getting an abortion in accordance with their own beliefs; to me it's a personal choice and I wouldn't know what someone else in that situation would be feeling or wanting to do or not do. It's only when people try to force women into behaving a certain way - by harassing them or cutting off their range of options - that it pisses me off. And that's what you see with the anti-choicers.

Speaking from a personal standpoint, I behave responsibly in regards to sex. I was lucky to have had the necessary education at appropriate ages. (Of course, it helps that I really don't have a sex drive to begin with, heh) But if I were to become involved with someone (not likely at this point in my life for reasons too long to go into here), I would *insist* in no uncertain terms in discussing our respective approaches to the subject of children *before* we had sex. Personally, I don't want kids, ever (also a long story). But I accept that other people do, and that's cool too. Any man to get involved with me would have to accept that this is *not* up for negotiation, ever, and that as precaution against unwanted pregnancy, we would both have to get sterilized (I believe in taking out all insurance, heh). (And yes, I also understand that some people aren't willing for reasons of their own to do such.)

Now, if by some chance I wound up pregnant (another case for sterilization: the threat of rape!), I would NOT want to go through with it. I believe I *would* be desperate enough to throw myself down a flight of stairs, or drink poison, or something equally as horrid just to induce miscarriage (and very likely end or scar my life) if I couldn't get a safe, legal abortion. Because I just don't want to be pregnant, let alone have any kids. (And here you get back to the issue of autonomy again) I don't think that in of itself is necessarily selfish (and someone once pointed out to me that technically, everything humans do is selfish; the question is whether or not it's a selfishness that inflicts itself on anyone else, which of course leads to new merry-go-rounds...) I'm more than happy to behave responsibly in regards to sex, and to help others do so as well, but I also don't believe in punishing people for having had sex (which won't fix the core problems anyway), and to me, that's what forced pregnancy looks like.

Don't know if that answers your question, but I hope it helps.

I'd love to see an organization like that. I think it would quickly get polarized towards one side or the other unless the founders kept a tight leash on political rhetoric, but I would definitely join an org like that. I don't anticipate having the energy or resources to found a group like that in the next five years, nor would I have the tact necessary to keep the hotheads on both sides from tearing each other's throats out.

I agree with you on all counts. (I don't even have the organizational skills necessary, let alone tact, LOL - yay for ADD. XD ) But, we can always dream...?

[Seshat]

<Semi MOD hat, semi personal opinion>

I'd just like to say that I'm very happy to see Sylvia727 and Amethyst Hunter discussing pro-life and pro-choice so calmly - and finding such common ground.

THIS is my personal ideal for Fratching. Finding places where apparently disparate beliefs intersect, and learning the reasons for the differences.

<Removing MOD hat>

I'm STRONGLY in favour of improving sex education. A relative of mine tells me that when she was in hospital, in the early stages of labour, the woman in the next bed over was terribly frightened.

She asked my relative where the child comes out. 'Does it come out through the mouth?'

My relative quickly ascertained that yes, this poor woman who was in labour really was that ignorant, and arranged for a maternity nurse to explain things to her.

I want a world where that sort of thing never happens again.

I want a world where every woman - and man - knows at least the biology of sex, reproduction, contraception options, STD protection and the emotional consequences that sex can have.

I also would greatly approve of sex education including the social consequences of sex, the ethics of sex as appropriate to the social cultures in the region, and comparitive sex-ethics of world cultures.

Religious considerations should also be included, even if the formal curriculum treats the religions in a comparitive-religious-studies sort of way. The families and their religious advisors can provide a more personalised religion-and-sex education to their children.

I am personally very strongly pro-choice. But I would gladly work with pro-life people to develop and lobby for such a curriculum. And I'd happily work towards an abortion section of the curriculum which included both pro-life and pro-choice arguments, and treated each side fairly.

Even if we decided it was 'fair' because we each felt equally mistreated by the curriculum. :D


<MOD hat back on>

. . . and we should probably get back towards the nominal subject of this thread, fairly soon. If we get three or four more posts on the abortion topic, there's enough interest for it to have a thread of its own.

<MOD hat off again.>

[Sylvia727]

Alright, since everyone here seems to have found a common ground in that anti-choice = evil and education = good ...

What about pharmacies that refuse to stock contraception or the morning after pill? On one hand, I can see their rights as private businesses to sell what they want. If I belonged to a religion that prohibited alcohol and the government told me I had to sell alcohol, I'd be pissed. Shouldn't the owners have a say in what they sell?

On the other hand, I can see the rights of the women in their area to have access to bc. If, as is so often the case, one pharmacy in a mega chain drives all the others out of business, where should these women turn?

What about the women who take bc for other reasons? I have PCOS, which basically means that when I'm off my bc, my hormones go out of whack and grow cysts on my ovaries. One of my aunts has PCOS too, and she had to have an ovary completely removed after it was subsumed by its cysts. I plan to have kids someday, and I kinda need my ovaries for that, not to mention the health risks and that I currently can't afford the expense of surgery. Plus, when I'm off my meds, the cramp leave me in the fetal position for hours at a stretch. Should a pharmecy be allowed to deny me the meds I need, just because it also inhibits pregnancy?

One of the PP reps who came to speak at my uni passed around a morning-after pill that is available OTC for about $40. She recommended that women who were worried about spur-of-the-moment bad decisions purchase one and keep it on hand. Should a pharmacy be forced to keep these on hand? Should they be required to stock condoms?

Is it fair to boycott a business if their views don't align with your own? They're entitled to their opinions too.

[Boozy]

Is it fair to boycott a business if their views don't align with your own? They're entitled to their opinions too.

And I'm entitled to spend my money where I want. How is it unfair of me to spend my money at places that don't turn around and spend part of that money on causes I don't believe in?

There is a difference between being entitled to an opinion and being free of any consequences for voicing it.

[Seshat]

What about pharmacies that refuse to stock contraception or the morning after pill? On one hand, I can see their rights as private businesses to sell what they want. If I belonged to a religion that prohibited alcohol and the government told me I had to sell alcohol, I'd be pissed. Shouldn't the owners have a say in what they sell?

<snip>

Is it fair to boycott a business if their views don't align with your own? They're entitled to their opinions too.

I don't have a good answer for the pharmacy-contraceptive issue. I think the best compromise available is for the pharmacist to recommend another, nearby pharmacy which does provide the drug. However, what if there are no nearby pharmacies which do?

I do have an even trickier situation. You're a doctor in a Catholic hospital - or other hospital with similar beliefs abortion-wise. You have a patient suffering an extremely difficult pregnancy. It is your medical opinion that the patient will die without an abortion. What do you do?
What if the reason you're practicing in that hospital is that you are yourself Catholic, and believe that abortion is a sin?

As for the fairness or unfairness of boycotting a business whose views differ from yours: it's your money. This is how the market works: people buy the stuff they want. If someone doesn't want a gas-guzzling car, do you think they should buy one anyway?

[Boozy]

Doctors are health care practitioners licensed by the state. Here in Canada (I am not sure about elsewhere), they swear an oath to do what is in the best interest of their patients. They can be a member of any religion, but if that religion tells them to break that oath, the state can take away their license.

Same deal with pharmacists. I'm usually quite liberal when it comes to making realistic accommodations for certain religions. For example, I think Sikhs should be exempt from wearing the RCMP hats so that they can wear their turbans and still serve as police officers.

But I draw the line when it comes to projecting your morality on someone else. If a pharmacist has a problem with filling certain prescriptions, they need to find a new line of work. Providing doctor-prescribed medication is the major requirement of their job.

[AFPheonix]

Heh. We had a call from another pharmacy the other night to counsel a patient on her Plan B script because the pharmacist at the other store didn't want to. I'm glad I work with a bunch of pharmacists who aren't idiotic about EC.

I can't speak for other states' rules, but in Oregon the pharmacist is allowed to not dispense ONLY if there is another option available for the patient, IE another pharmacy nearby with the product in stock or another pharmacist on duty at the same store who will dispense. The pharmacist is not allowed to interfere with the patient's ability to get the medicine. Furthermore, that pharmacist is required to identify nearby pharmacies to the patient and ensure that they have it in stock before they send them away. They are not allowed to lecture the patient on their religious ideas or morals about EC, nor can they damage or destroy or keep the patient's prescription.
My particular chain has cracked down on pharmacists who want to be stinky about dispensing it, too. Sorry, but if you want to run an uber-religious pharmacy, open up your own shop. You don't get to do it under the auspices of my chain's logo.

We do have a pharmacist who gets all bent out of shape when someone wants insulin syringes for potentially non-insulin purposes (ie drugs). Those guys usually ask for a 10 pack of them.
We usually just brush on by her and sell them anyways. It's a public health service, and the druggies in our area are usually well behaved enough that they don't leave their used needles in the neighbors' yards or under swing sets. If we had an issue with needles being discarded all over the place then yeah, we'd probably tighten up on selling them, but until then, we're helping prevent the spread of Hep C and HIV.

[Amethyst Hunter]

What about pharmacies that refuse to stock contraception or the morning after pill? On one hand, I can see their rights as private businesses to sell what they want. If I belonged to a religion that prohibited alcohol and the government told me I had to sell alcohol, I'd be pissed. Shouldn't the owners have a say in what they sell?

Thing with alcohol is that it's *not* a necessary requirement (Some folks might argue otherwise, LOL, but that's another story). Medicine IS a necessity, particularly for people who have serious health conditions - as you pointed out, PCOS.

If we let pharmacies pick and choose what medicines they will and won't give out, who they will and won't serve (sucky/abusive customers aside, that is), where does the line get drawn next? Do we turn down all prescriptions for AIDS medications because the pharmacist may believe that AIDS is God's punishment for "those nasty homos"? How about things like insulin? There are actually people who believe that any disease is God's doing and that it can simply be eliminated if you pray enough, if you're a "good" enough Christian, and if you take medications for it then you aren't trusting in God and supposedly that's a sin. Unfortunately, diabetes doesn't work like that. It WILL kill somebody if left untreated properly, and some folks *need* insulin to survive.

Make no mistake - that's *exactly* what these BC-denying antis would do if they had carte blanche. I heard there is a law in Michigan stating that paramedics can refuse to treat someone they believe is homosexual (and possibly pagan, too, but I definitely remember the gay part) based on the whole "moral clause" thing. If that's true, it sets a horrifying precedent for medical care: if you're not "feminine" enough, if you're the "wrong" religion, if I just don't plain like the way you look, I can literally let you die. I think that's about as un-Christian as it gets, myself.

I don't want some self-righteous snotball judging my life by their beliefs - and that includes refusing me medicine just because they don't like it and I want/need it (I take BC for a messed-up cycle, and I promise, if any asshat tries that BS with me, you WILL be hearing about it on the news and it ain't gonna be pretty).

Plus, when I'm off my meds, the cramp leave me in the fetal position for hours at a stretch. Should a pharmecy be allowed to deny me the meds I need, just because it also inhibits pregnancy?

One of the PP reps who came to speak at my uni passed around a morning-after pill that is available OTC for about $40. She recommended that women who were worried about spur-of-the-moment bad decisions purchase one and keep it on hand. Should a pharmacy be forced to keep these on hand? Should they be required to stock condoms?

Is it fair to boycott a business if their views don't align with your own? They're entitled to their opinions too.

You pretty much answered your own question. Businesses are entitled to have their own opinions; they just aren't entitled to force those opinions on everybody else. Healthcare is non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned.

[Seshat]

If that's true, it sets a horrifying precedent for medical care: if you're not "feminine" enough, if you're the "wrong" religion, if I just don't plain like the way you look, I can literally let you die. I think that's about as un-Christian as it gets, myself.

That behaviour directly opposes the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus himself would disapprove.


And no, I'm not Christian. I was just raised that way, and haven't forgotten the lessons.

[Sylvia727]

Medicine IS a necessity, particularly for people who have serious health conditions - as you pointed out, PCOS.

My PCOS medicine is a necessity, yes. But I think the argument could be made that birth control isn't. I don't agree with that opinion, but I've heard it voiced, and I think there is a kernel of truth in it, in that women aren't automatically jeopardized by its absence.

If we let pharmacies pick and choose what medicines they will and won't give out, who they will and won't serve (sucky/abusive customers aside, that is), where does the line get drawn next?

I like the law in Michigan someone quoted, where a pharmecy was only allowed to not stock something if a nearby competitor did stock it, and then provide directions to the rival. I think this would be a workable compromise. I don't want to see pharmacists forced to do things against their religion, because then where does that line get drawn?

I heard there is a law in Michigan stating that paramedics can refuse to treat someone they believe is homosexual (and possibly pagan, too, but I definitely remember the gay part) based on the whole "moral clause" thing.

That is just effing ridiculous. If that law doesn't get appealed and overturned...I just don't know. *shakes head sadly*

[Amethyst Hunter]

But I think the argument could be made that birth control isn't. I don't agree with that opinion, but I've heard it voiced, and I think there is a kernel of truth in it, in that women aren't automatically jeopardized by its absence.

Depends on who you talk to. Granted, not every woman can take hormonal BC for various reasons (some people simply don't react well to it), but for those that do, it's a godsend. Some folks are also allergic to the latex in condoms, and if you're trying to avoid unwanted pregnancy, condoms (and BC) are usually first in the line of defense. Take away either/both of those options, and you're stuck with a risk that has serious repercussions if you roll the dice and come up on the losing end of the bet.

I know there's a method called NFP (Natural Family Planning) to time pregnancies, but IMO it's way too much risk (no offense to anybody that does use this method) - not for nothing is there a joke out there that goes "What do you call someone who uses NFP?" "Daddy." Something like 80 - 90% of all women in the States are using hormonal BC at some point in their lives...that's an awful lot of people to gamble with by altering BC access.

I like the law in Michigan someone quoted, where a pharmecy was only allowed to not stock something if a nearby competitor did stock it, and then provide directions to the rival. I think this would be a workable compromise. I don't want to see pharmacists forced to do things against their religion, because then where does that line get drawn?

It might be a workable compromise in a big city, where there would be lots of competitors available and (most) people could rely on public transit to get there. In more rural areas, that could be a big problem, especially taking poverty into account - not everyone has access to a vehicle or public transport. There are some places that literally only have one pharmacy for miles around; what do you do when that pharmacy refuses to carry certain medications because of personal beliefs, and you can't get to a rival that does carry it because the closest one is like 50+ miles away?

Also, some pharmacies that practice "moral clause" won't even refer the customer to a place that does stock particular meds; in a few worst-case scenarios, a couple of pharmacists have been known to refuse to give the customer back her prescription, and at least one that I know of even tore it up right in front of the customer's face! :eek:

IMO there's a fine line between respecting religion and just being a jerk about something, and I honestly don't believe that pharmacists who refuse to dispense BC are honoring any religious tenet - why don't they use their "moral clause" to deny Viagra prescriptions, or hoaxy diet pill sales? Neither of those things is particularly critical to people's health (it could be argued that Viagra and ones like it encourage promiscuity, if one thought along those lines), and in the case of the latter, they can even harm people (fen-fen, anyone?).

Thus far, it's only been BC that they've been targeting. Who uses BC (the pill)? Women. And, too, if they're going to attack BC based on false information and religious bias, they could at least be fair about it and go after condoms and male-related things too. But they haven't, they don't and I strongly suspect that they won't. I smell serious misogyny there.

If BC is so objectionable to these people, they don't belong in an industry that puts them into contact with it, period. (There's another rant I could go into about how dominionists are deliberately encouraging their people to go into pharmacology for this express purpose, but that's for another time and another spot.) Someone else pointed out that it's akin to a vegetarian working at a meat-based restaurant and refusing to serve meat-based dishes (or vice versa), and I agree.

[AFPheonix]

It might be a workable compromise in a big city, where there would be lots of competitors available and (most) people could rely on public transit to get there. In more rural areas, that could be a big problem, especially taking poverty into account - not everyone has access to a vehicle or public transport. There are some places that literally only have one pharmacy for miles around; what do you do when that pharmacy refuses to carry certain medications because of personal beliefs, and you can't get to a rival that does carry it because the closest one is like 50+ miles away?

Also, some pharmacies that practice "moral clause" won't even refer the customer to a place that does stock particular meds; in a few worst-case scenarios, a couple of pharmacists have been known to refuse to give the customer back her prescription, and at least one that I know of even tore it up right in front of the customer's face! :eek:


And that's why, at least the Oregon Board of Pharmacy, puts in the caveat that a pharmacist can only refuse to dispense IF the conditions that a nearby pharmacy has the product in stock and that the pharmacist has checked has been met. If they cannot be met, then the pharmacist must dispense the product if they have it or order it in a timely manner if it's not on hand.

If pharmacies have "moral clauses" that go against their states' board rules, then they can be called on it and punished, including a hefty fine. That pharmacist that ripped up the script without the doctor's say so should have been reported to the Board. Was he?

[Sylvia727]

Depends on who you talk to.

For many women, it is a necessity. For many women, it is a convenience or a luxury. I'm certainly not denying the importance of birth control. Women who use it should have the right to buy it, even if it isn't 'necessary'. I just don't think that a pharmacist should be forced to supply it if there's a viable alternative.

It might be a workable compromise in a big city, <snip> There are some places that literally only have one pharmacy for miles around; what do you do when that pharmacy refuses to carry certain medications because of personal beliefs, and you can't get to a rival that does carry it because the closest one is like 50+ miles away?

In that case, I think the pharmacist should be required to carry the medicine, because there is no viable alternative. But I think that system is wide open to abuse anyway. A rural town, where the nearest rival is 50 miles away, is going to have a small population. People are naturally nosey about their neighbors. Any pharmacist who went into that situation intending to make judgement calls about certain things is going to see many opportunities to abuse that power. Even if the government requires them to stock it, they could harass the customer in a variety of ways, like calling the doctor back each time for "illegibility", announcing the script loudly when there's a line, even a significant eyebrow waggle to the neighborhood gossip.

I'm not defending this behavior at all. But it is important to note that each community has a different makeup. A young woman in a small, intolerant community is less likely to risk ostracization by publicly purchasing evidence of an active sex life.

Also, some pharmacies that practice "moral clause" won't even refer the customer to a place that does stock particular meds; in a few worst-case scenarios, a couple of pharmacists have been known to refuse to give the customer back her prescription, and at least one that I know of even tore it up right in front of the customer's face! :eek:

Sadly, that behavior is not limited to birth control. When my mom got out of surgery, her doctor prescribed pain medication. However, the pharmacist refused to dispense them, claiming some nonsense about conflicting dates. She also refused to give my mom back the paper script, saying that "no other pharmacy will dispense this either". Mom argued with the pharmacist and her boss for 30 minutes before she got her paper script back - which is legally her property. And what do you know? The next pharmacy Mom went to dispensed the pills, no problem. To this day, none of my family members will shop at this pharmacy or the grocery store it's attached to.

IMO there's a fine line between respecting religion and just being a jerk about something,

Yup. And all of my arguments thus far have assumed an honest, if close-minded, pharmacist who is geniunely bothered by birth control. Someone who abuses the moral clause deserves to be punished by the appropriate authorities. We shouldn't shut down all of them just because most are assholes.

If BC is so objectionable to these people, they don't belong in an industry that puts them into contact with it, period. <snip> Someone else pointed out that it's akin to a vegetarian working at a meat-based restaurant and refusing to serve meat-based dishes (or vice versa), and I agree.

I don't think it's like a waiter in a steakhouse, more like a vegetarian opening a sandwich shop. There are thousands and thousands of medicines that a non-bc-dispensing pharmacy can still sell. Yes, many people need red meat in their diet, but if there's another valid source for them, why should the vegetarian be forced to sell roast beef?

[Amethyst Hunter]

In that case, I think the pharmacist should be required to carry the medicine, because there is no viable alternative. But I think that system is wide open to abuse anyway. A rural town, where the nearest rival is 50 miles away, is going to have a small population. People are naturally nosey about their neighbors. Any pharmacist who went into that situation intending to make judgement calls about certain things is going to see many opportunities to abuse that power. Even if the government requires them to stock it, they could harass the customer in a variety of ways, like calling the doctor back each time for "illegibility", announcing the script loudly when there's a line, even a significant eyebrow waggle to the neighborhood gossip.

So very true - and I've lived in small towns most of my life so I know *exactly* what you mean!

A young woman in a small, intolerant community is less likely to risk ostracization by publicly purchasing evidence of an active sex life.

It's a logical assumption to make, that's true - only thing is, unless one were to follow that woman home and peer into her bedroom window (hellooooo stalking), we have no way of knowing *for sure* what the intended use is going to be; for all we know she could be on BC for the same reason I am (fix a wonky cycle). I mean, my folks are smokers, but I'm not, and sometimes they'll send me down to the corner store to buy them cigarettes as a matter of convenience. I'm sure the clerks there probably think I have a pack-a-day (or close) habit...but at least they're nice about it. :o

I just worry that women may be looped into having to prove themselves to such judgmental types - "Hi, here's my ultrasound and my bloodwork and a doctor's note saying that this is what I need and this is why I'm taking X medication..." (And even that's no guarantee, if you run into a particularly stubborn one) I don't think anybody should have to be forced into those kinds of humiliating straits. It's absolutely none of my business why someone is taking X medication, and so long as there's no concrete evidence that they're selling it on the street or otherwise engaged in illegal activities related to it, I'm perfectly willing to keep my nose to myself.

Sadly, that behavior is not limited to birth control. When my mom got out of surgery, her doctor prescribed pain medication. However, the pharmacist refused to dispense them, claiming some nonsense about conflicting dates. She also refused to give my mom back the paper script, saying that "no other pharmacy will dispense this either". Mom argued with the pharmacist and her boss for 30 minutes before she got her paper script back - which is legally her property. And what do you know? The next pharmacy Mom went to dispensed the pills, no problem. To this day, none of my family members will shop at this pharmacy or the grocery store it's attached to.

Conflicting dates?? That doesn't sound right to me either. The only legitimate reasons I can think of for a pharmacist to refuse any prescription would be a) the customer is being rude and abusive, in which case the right of service is invoked, or b) the person is already on some other kind of medication that could cause serious conflicts when taken along with the new medication, and in that case I would wonder why the doctor didn't catch it before it got to that point. (Although mistakes can happen, I know)

What store/pharmacy was this, if I may ask? I'm wondering if it's a Target or a Walmart, as those are the two big chains I know of that have pharmacies along with their grocery stores, and I've heard iffy stories about both related to pharmaceutical practices.

And all of my arguments thus far have assumed an honest, if close-minded, pharmacist who is geniunely bothered by birth control. Someone who abuses the moral clause deserves to be punished by the appropriate authorities. We shouldn't shut down all of them just because most are assholes.

Why would said hypothetical honest pharmacist continue to work in an industry that offers a product he or she personally disagrees with? If such people do exist (and I'm not saying that they do or don't), it boggles me. If the principle of their religion is that important, it should override all others, including those of money and love of job. If I had a problem with, say, a retail store selling real fur coats (a whole 'nother bag 'o fratchworms), I wouldn't work there, I'd just find someplace else to get employment (which, for some folks, might be easier said than done, but I digress). I wouldn't be standing behind the counter waiting to throw paint buckets at customers who enjoy the feel of real fur (which is nice, I will admit, even though I'd never buy a real fur coat myself, not that I could ever afford one LOL). (Maybe that's not the best example, but it's all I can think of at the moment - hooray allergy medication, whee!)

I agree that genuine people who are merely following the tenets of whatever religion they profess shouldn't be punished for doing so; the question (and problem) becomes to what extent do their actions affect others for the negative? Finding reasonable compromises and accommodations for everybody is one thing, caving in to unrealistic demands by a minority group is another.

That pharmacist that ripped up the script without the doctor's say so should have been reported to the Board. Was he?

I don't know, offhand. I don't even remember the state in which this took place, though I seem to want to recall that it was either out west or down south. I'm pretty sure I read about it in one of the girlie trash mags like Glamour...I could be wrong though.

[AFPheonix]

Any pharmacist who went into that situation intending to make judgement calls about certain things is going to see many opportunities to abuse that power. Even if the government requires them to stock it, they could harass the customer in a variety of ways, like calling the doctor back each time for "illegibility", announcing the script loudly when there's a line, even a significant eyebrow waggle to the neighborhood gossip.

Again, that would be a HIPPA violation and easily fixed with a call to the board and the complaint to the owner of the pharmacy or district if it's a chain pharmacy. That sort of thing is simply not legally allowed.

Sadly, that behavior is not limited to birth control. When my mom got out of surgery, her doctor prescribed pain medication. However, the pharmacist refused to dispense them, claiming some nonsense about conflicting dates. She also refused to give my mom back the paper script, saying that "no other pharmacy will dispense this either".
It's entirely possible that the doctor put the incorrect date on the script, which happens a lot. In fact, we had 2 just today the doctor accidentally post-dated. Since they were controlled drugs, we had to call and confirm that the doctor wanted them dispensed today, as often doctors will give their patients post-dated scripts to control the rate the patient gets refills. It's really fun if it's a new year and the doctors keep writing the previous year on the script which also prompts a call if it's a CIII-CV as those are only good for 6 months after the prescribed date. Again, we cannot just assume.
It's also possible that the 2nd pharmacy simply missed what the first pharmacy caught. I've found mistakes later that made it through a phalanx of techs and at least one if not 2 pharmacists, such as a CII script that was a forged photocopy. Don't just assume they were dicking you around, most of the time we're far too busy to even bother.

[Sylvia727]

I just worry that women may be looped into having to prove themselves to such judgmental types - "Hi, here's my ultrasound and my bloodwork and a doctor's note saying that this is what I need and this is why I'm taking X medication..."

Absolutely not, that's not what I'm saying at all. But if the pharmacist doesn't care for one use of a particular drug, he should not have to stock it. If he thinks a wonky "diet" pill is harmful, he shouldn't have to stock it. I don't like Big Brother imposing *unnecessary* rulings. The only pharmacy for 50 miles around? Yeah, it's necessary for them to stock it. One of three pharmacies in a 5 mile radius? Unnecessary.

Every time I say "pharmacist", I mean pharmacy owner, not pharmacy tech. The rules should be the same across the board, and they should be enforced politely and respectfully.

What store/pharmacy was this, if I may ask?

A chain of local grocery stores. Nothing national.

Why would said hypothetical honest pharmacist continue to work in an industry that offers a product he or she personally disagrees with?

Because it offers 100,000 products s/he feels are of great benefit to humanity? Or maybe it's the best way to earn an honest living in this town? Why does it matter what the pharmacist's motives are? He doesn't have to defend his choices, because they are his choices. If his customers don't like it, they can vote with their feet.

I agree that genuine people who are merely following the tenets of whatever religion they profess shouldn't be punished for doing so; the question (and problem) becomes to what extent do their actions affect others for the negative? Finding reasonable compromises and accommodations for everybody is one thing, caving in to unrealistic demands by a minority group is another.

I think it's a reasonable compromise to allow pharmacists not to stock products they disagree with, as long those who need or want them will still have access elsewhere.

Again, that would be a HIPPA violation and easily fixed with a call to the board and the complaint to the owner of the pharmacy or district if it's a chain pharmacy. That sort of thing is simply not legally allowed.

Assuming the woman knew this... Assuming she had the courage to make the call... Assuming the local authorities weren't biased and took her complaint seriously... Assuming there was evidence of the illegal activity... Assuming anything actually gets done about it... the pharmacist could very well assume that there will be a break in this chain somewhere, and do it anyway. And at that point, her reputation and her lifestyle could be ruined.

It's entirely possible that the doctor put the incorrect date on the script, which happens a lot. <snip> It's also possible that the 2nd pharmacy simply missed what the first pharmacy caught.

I simplified the story from its five page rant story. Mom checked the dates, and had the 2nd pharmacy check the dates. The 2nd pharmacy even called the doctor, on Mom's request. There was no problem with the script whatsoever.

Don't just assume they were dicking you around, most of the time we're far too busy to even bother.

It was the woman's attitude that seriously pissed Mom off, and the fact that she refused to return Mom's property. Mom actually had her cell phone out to call the police and report a theft before the manager would return the script.

The pharmacist made a judgement call that Mom was a drug user who would abuse the medication, and refused to follow the proper channels if this had really been the case. Furthermore, she treated Mom like shit, like she wasn't even a real human being. I know y'all weren't there and can't know what happened; I just included this as an example of the power pharmacists have and how some of them can abuse it.

[Zyanya]

If I get pregnant again, I stand a very real chance of dying.

Do you have the right to deny me LIFE SAVING MEDICATION because of your personal belief that I should not have sex with my husband unless I want a kid?

I had someone try to deny me a birth control script once. I looked him dead in th eye and said 'are you then taking full responsibility for the abortion?'.


Fill the script. My sex life is none of your business.

[Amethyst Hunter]

But if the pharmacist doesn't care for one use of a particular drug, he should not have to stock it. If he thinks a wonky "diet" pill is harmful, he shouldn't have to stock it. I don't like Big Brother imposing *unnecessary* rulings. The only pharmacy for 50 miles around? Yeah, it's necessary for them to stock it. One of three pharmacies in a 5 mile radius? Unnecessary.

I don't like the whole Big Brother deal either; I can't imagine anyone who does. The problem with *any* kind of medicine is that it can be abused, or someone could find fault with it for whatever reason. The abuse of OTC drugs is why we now have sign-for sheets at some places for cold medications that can be used in the making of crystal meth. I have a friend whose parents didn't believe in vaccinations for their kids because they were afraid that the vaccines were worse than the actual disease. Once we start applying certain distinctions to certain medications, shouldn't we also then apply those same distinctions to other drugs as well, if only to be fair?

I could live with a compromise wherein large metropolitan areas could have pharmacists with varying stances on certain medications; however, I just don't trust politics not to screw it up (local politics can be just as bad if not worse than national!), and that's why we have the policies in place that we do now.

Why does it matter what the pharmacist's motives are? He doesn't have to defend his choices, because they are his choices...The pharmacist made a judgement call that Mom was a drug user who would abuse the medication, and refused to follow the proper channels if this had really been the case.

Why does it matter what the customer's motives are (assuming they're legal, that is)? She doesn't have to defend her choices either. Isn't the pharmacist making a judgement too by refusing particular medications that, to date, have *not* been proven to cause half the things that some people say they do? That's what I'm trying to understand, is why it's okay to single out one medication and give a free pass to the others. Not that anybody should be denied anything or that people should get to abuse with abandon, but I don't get why pharmacists who dislike BC aren't invoking their 'moral clause' to turn down other things (diet pills, steroids, cold medications that people could use to get high off of, etc. - ties in with that whole 'your body is a temple' ideal) that could potentially conflict with their choice of religion. I would think that they'd be all over that chance, if the religion is that important to them. :confused:

It was the woman's attitude that seriously pissed Mom off, and the fact that she refused to return Mom's property. Mom actually had her cell phone out to call the police and report a theft before the manager would return the script.

:eek: I don't blame either you or your mom for being pissed; I'd have definitely called the cops if it'd been me there. I'm sorry you had to go through that crap.

I had someone try to deny me a birth control script once. I looked him dead in th eye and said 'are you then taking full responsibility for the abortion?'.

What was the outcome of the story, if I might ask?

[AFPheonix]

Assuming the woman knew this... Assuming she had the courage to make the call... Assuming the local authorities weren't biased and took her complaint seriously... Assuming there was evidence of the illegal activity... Assuming anything actually gets done about it... the pharmacist could very well assume that there will be a break in this chain somewhere, and do it anyway. And at that point, her reputation and her lifestyle could be ruined.
Just about any customer knows to complain if shit goes down. Also all of our licenses are displayed in the pharmacy where customers can see them, and you can plainly see who granted the license. It's really no different than taking on a bad doctor. Actually as pharmacy schools phase out the bachelor of pharmacy and institute the PharmD degree, it's exactly the same idea as taking on a bad doctor or other health care professional. Also, there's always civil court, which would be easily winnable if there were laws like HIPPA broken. There are plenty of avenues.



I simplified the story from its five page rant story. Mom checked the dates, and had the 2nd pharmacy check the dates. The 2nd pharmacy even called the doctor, on Mom's request. There was no problem with the script whatsoever.



It was the woman's attitude that seriously pissed Mom off, and the fact that she refused to return Mom's property. Mom actually had her cell phone out to call the police and report a theft before the manager would return the script.

The pharmacist made a judgement call that Mom was a drug user who would abuse the medication, and refused to follow the proper channels if this had really been the case. Furthermore, she treated Mom like shit, like she wasn't even a real human being. I know y'all weren't there and can't know what happened; I just included this as an example of the power pharmacists have and how some of them can abuse it.
Ah. In that case, you did run across a bad seed, or even one who's had a few too many drug seekers come through. I see quite a few pharmacists float through who are pretty jaded from dealing with people doing illegal things. We've had several people arrested in our lobby who have passed faked or altered scripts before and threatened action against several others who tried to keep up their charade. And we're a pharmacy in a relatively good part of town.
But again, you have the power to ding a bad pharmacist's record by complaining to the Board. I don't know about other states, but the Oregon Board takes complaints seriously. We had someone call and complain about us several months ago because they insisted that we did not dispense the full quantity of their controlled drug. It was a large enough quantity that we had to put it in 2 bottles and documented as such on the script. We had video evidence to show the inspector that came that the pharmacist who reviewed it put both bottles in the bag and securely stapled it, and when it was time to sell it, the bag still had both bottles when the tech sold it and the pharmacist counseled.
My particular chain has several avenues to complain to: in person, by phone or through our website. They also pay attention to complaint sites.
I have little doubt that if I worked in a crooked pharmacy (and I don't) that we'd be quickly caught and held to account if people complained. Want something to happen? Do something about it.

[AFPheonix]

I forgot to mention that if someone theoretically has a spawn of satan for a local pharmacist who won't dispense birth control, doesn't have another pharmacy nearby, and is too chickenshit to do something about it, there's always mail-order pharmacies, available through just about every major pharmacy chain and prescription insurance carriers.

[Sylvia727]

I'm starting to feel that I'm defending a hypothetical position that does not exist in sufficient quantities to be worth debating. I shall sum up thusly: denying pharmacy clients a drug because one suspects that their intended use does not fit with your beliefs is bad. Big Brother unnecessarily forcing a private business owner to stock a product against his beliefs is bad. The gap between the two may not be as large as I initially assumed.

I forgot to mention that if someone theoretically has a spawn of satan for a local pharmacist who won't dispense birth control, doesn't have another pharmacy nearby, and is too chickenshit to do something about it, there's always mail-order pharmacies, available through just about every major pharmacy chain and prescription insurance carriers.

A valid point, though I object to the word 'chickenshit'. Many women may not feel so strongly about the issue that it is worth the hassle or negative reputation to them. That doesn't make them cowardly.

[AFPheonix]

I was simply responding to your assertion that a woman would not report a bad pharmacist to the Board because she lacked courage. Could I have used a less colloquial word? Yeah, but I'm a 12 year old boy in a 28 year old woman's body :p

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm attempting to spread awareness that women who deal with idiot pharmacists have recourses available to them. They're not powerless in the least. Do me a favor and spread the word that there are ways to get crappy pharmacists in trouble.

[Sylvia727]

I was simply responding to your assertion that a woman would not report a bad pharmacist to the Board because she lacked courage. Could I have used a less colloquial word? Yeah, but I'm a 12 year old boy in a 28 year old woman's body :p

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm attempting to spread awareness that women who deal with idiot pharmacists have recourses available to them. They're not powerless in the least. Do me a favor and spread the word that there are ways to get crappy pharmacists in trouble.

I see. I obviously misunderstood you. Though I was not asserting that she was cowardly either, merely that she might not want to go through with it for any number of reasons. And yes, I will keep that tidbit filed away for the future. I've dealt with crappy pharmacists and never reported them, so I will be sure to pass that on.

[Zyanya]

What was the outcome of the story, if I might ask?

I got to witness a grown man throwing a temper tantrum that any toddler would find awe-inspiring and his boss filled my script. Don't know if he was fired because I never went back to that pharmacy.