9th Circuit Endorses Slavery
July 23, 2009Contrarian 6 Comments »The opinion of the Spokesman-Review’s editors (July 11) regarding the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Stormans v. Selecky is as puzzling as the decision itself. (The ruling in question lifted an injunction issued by a lower court which barred the State of Washington from enforcing a decree that pharmacists stock and dispense the “morning after” pill).
The S-R’s editorial writer says, “Significantly, however, the 9th Circuit opinion stresses that the religious-freedom concerns claimed by an Olympia pharmacy and two pharmacists there have to be weighed against the interests of the public.”
Oh? Since when? At what point in history did pharmacists become slaves of the State, or indentured servants of “the public”? I’m quite sure those pharmacists, like most brick layers, shoe salesmen, auto mechanics, computer programmers, and virtually every other working person, assumed they were working for their own and their families’ interests, and in the interests of those customers and clients with whom they chose to do business and who chose to do business with them. How and when did they acquire an obligation to subordinate their own interests and preferences to some nebulous “public interest”?
The S-R’s editors further observe, “Entering a licensed profession such as pharmacy should not include the right to assert one’s personal beliefs at the expense of the public’s.”
Er, folks, the purpose of licensing requirements for certain professions is to assure that persons proffering those services are in fact qualified to practice them. Applying for and obtaining a professional license does not consign the licensee to permanent State servitude, conscript him into some social crusade, or subscribe him to some kind of communitarian ideology.
Weighing the interests of pharmacists (and of any other actual, living, breathing individual) against the so-called interests of “the public” (which is never more than an interest of certain other individuals to whom pandering politicians have promised free lunches in exchange for their votes) is a no-brainer. The former trump the latter every time. Pharmacists in a free country, like restauranteurs, “Reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
Auto repair shops are licensed too. What’s next — demanding that all such shops carry bicycle parts and employ qualified bicycle mechanics in order to spare cyclists the inconvenience of going elsewhere?
What country is this again?
Tags: court rulings, individual freedom, public interest, Spokesman-Review
Posted on July 29th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Aren’t pharmacists a bit different than brick layers or auto mechanics in that the services they provide are (often) life-saving services? I would group them with doctors or EMTs, for example. These professions would seem to carry with them a duty to act to help those in need whenever possible, without regard for personal biases.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I find it interesting that in order to obtain/retain a license to a particular profession that one must agree with some particular orthodoxy on a particular political belief. So, if a pharmacist must believe, in order to obtain/retain his/her license, that aborting a human fetus is an acceptable action, would a pharmicist also be required to believe in taxpayer funded universal healthcare in order to obtain/retain their license? Must a lawyer believe that trees have standing to sue for being harvested and used for building materials? Must an architect believe that all structures comply with the highest LEED standard…or that neo-gothic revival should be the architectural style for all public buildings?
I also find it interesting that Nick compares dispensing a drug that will end human life to providing life saving acts.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Posted on August 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am
First, the “Plan B” drug does not end a human life. It releases hormones in order to prevent a woman from ovulating. If an egg has already been fertilized, then the drug will be ineffective.
Second, the dispensing of “Plan B” pills, birth control pills, spermicidal lubricants, etc. does not infringe on the the religious rights of the pharmacist. They do not have to use the products they dispense. Instead, by refusing to dispense the products because of “religious beliefs”, they are attempting to force those beliefs on another individual.
In my opinion, the government does have an interest in creating standards for when and how these medications can be dispensed and what role religious beliefs can play. Any wackaloon with the right amount of charisma and luck can start a religion and create any number of silly rules and beliefs. Should the government attempt to decide which religious rules are acceptable for pharmacists to use as personal exemptions? For instance, if it is OK for a Christian pharmacist to refuse to dispense Plan B, then can a Scientologist pharmacist refuse to dispense anti-psychotic medications? Can a Christian Science pharmacist refuse to dispense almost any medication?
Personally, I would prefer that the government attempt to create a level playing field where individuals are able to make such decisions for themselves without having to combat the religious views of their local pharmacist.
Lastly, many professions carry with them particular orthodoxies that one must accept when entering the profession. Would a vegetarian go to work at a meat packing plant? Would a pro-life activist go to work at Planned Parenthood? I wouldn’t feel much empathy for either individual in either situation as they had to have known what they were getting themselves into.
Posted on August 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
“Second, the dispensing of “Plan B” pills, birth control pills, spermicidal lubricants, etc. does not infringe on the the religious rights of the pharmacist. They do not have to use the products they dispense. Instead, by refusing to dispense the products because of ‘religious beliefs’, they are attempting to force those beliefs on another individual.”
No, Nick. You are using the Newspeak, leftist definition of “force,” which is merely a rhetorical ruse without substantive (i.e. moral) content. One moral agent exerts force, in the morally relevant (and ordinary language) sense, against another when he inflicts or threatens bodily harm upon him or seizes or destroys his property. A mugger exerts force against you when he sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your money; a rapist exerts force against his victim when he threatens bodily harm unless she submits. Someone who merely declines to do business with you, or more generally, refuses to give you something you want but to which you have no right, is not forcing you to do anything. That usage entered the Left’s propaganda repertoire with Marx’s claims that workers are “forced” to work for capitalists or starve. It has since been recruited to condemn anyone who refuses to submit to the Left’s latest demand for a free lunch.
No one has any obligation to do business with any other person, for any reason, unless they’ve freely entered into some kind of contract with that person. Farmers have no duty to feed you, builders have no duty to provide you with housing, physicians have no duty to treat you (unless they’ve accepted such a duty as a matter of personal choice), auto mechanics have no duty to fix your car, no one has any duty to employ you. And none of them exert “force” against you if they decline to provide you with any of those things.
Nor do those pharmacists much care, I’m sure, what anyone else believes. They are acting in accordance with their *own* beliefs, which they are perfectly entitled to do. You have it exactly backwards — it is the pharmacists who are being forced to act in accord with someone else’s beliefs. It is they against whom threats of bodily harm and seizure of property (imprisonment, fines) are directed if they tell the State to go to Hell.
“In my opinion, the government does have an interest in creating standards for when and how these medications can be dispensed and what role religious beliefs can play. Any wackaloon with the right amount of charisma and luck can start a religion and create any number of silly rules and beliefs. Should the government attempt to decide which religious rules are acceptable for pharmacists to use as personal exemptions? For instance, if it is OK for a Christian pharmacist to refuse to dispense Plan B, then can a Scientologist pharmacist refuse to dispense anti-psychotic medications? Can a Christian Science pharmacist refuse to dispense almost any medication?”
The answer to the first question is clearly, “No” — the government has no business whatsoever intruding into the religious precepts pharmacists or any one else follows in the practice of their professions. The answer to the last 3 questions are all “yes.” Any of those pharmacists may refuse to carry any medication they choose. They may also refuse to sell any medication they’ve chosen to handle to any person they choose, for any reason they choose — even if its just because they don’t like a would-be customer’s looks. The State’s only *legitimate* interest is in making sure that the pharmacist does not pose a risk to public health because he does not know one drug from another, or because the products he is dispensing are unsafe. It has no legitimate interest is making sure everyone acts in accordance with the popular dogmas of the day, that everyone treat everyone else equally, or in deciding how large a role religion shall play in the conduct of anyone’s life.
BTW, thanks for the mention on your blog, Nick.
Posted on August 1st, 2009 at 6:27 pm
BTW, Nick, since you drew the parallel between pharmacists and physicians, I’m wondering whether you would also force the latter to perform abortions, whether they decline because they are Catholic or just because they find the procedure loathsome. What about a midwife who delivers most of the babies in some small town where there is no MD — should she be forced to perform abortions too? How about a plastic surgeon who refuses to do breast implants, just because he thinks it’s silly?
It’s interesting how selective self-described pro-choicers on the Left are with respect to who gets to choose. They support a woman’s right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy, and the right of physicians and others to help her end it if that’s her choice, but not the right of physicians, pharmacists, and others NOT to help her should they so decide. Apparently, while pregnant women have a right to control their own bodies, pharmacists and physicians do not. Sorry, but that position has a rather rank smell — the smell of hypocrisy.
Posted on August 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Well, I won’t quibble with you on the word “force.” But, I think that when someone in a position of power makes a decision for me based on their own religious views, they are at least attempting to confine my decision to those religious views as well. They may not be successful (I will likely go to another pharmacy for instance), but the attempt is there. And, again, I have no empathy whatsoever for anyone with conservative Christian values who chooses freely to enter a science-based profession. They can cry me a river about their “religious rights” being trampled and it will carry about as much weight as the same complaints from the atheist who goes to work at a faith-based agency.
With regard to the parallel between pharmacists and physicians:
I would not expect the state to require physicians to perform abortions against their will. I would, however, expect the state to enforce standards of competence and education amongst physicians and pharmacists alike. When I see my doctor, the license he or she receives from the state should indicate to me that I am dealing with someone who is educated and knowledgeable about their profession. I expect my doctor to lay out all treatment options for me with all of the evidence-based pros and cons to those treatments. I don’t expect my doctor to perform an abortion or a colonoscopy or any other procedure they don’t want to. I would expect them, however, to respect my decisions regarding my medical care. Based on that license, I would not expect the doctor to lie to me, withhold information, or present false information to me disguised as professional opinion. If that were to happen, the doctor’s license should be suspended or revoked by the state.
The same is true with pharmacists. Knowledgeable, licensed pharmacists should be fully aware of what “Plan B” does and how it works. Claiming that it is an abortifacient when it is not suggests that they are either incompetent or lying. Either way, the state should consider suspending or revoking their license.
But, neither of these situation deals with the issue of stocking the medication (or offering abortion services). Now, I would actually have preferred that people interested in addressing the issue of businesses refusing to stock “Plan B” had gone the route of protesting the policy and educating other consumers on it. In Spokane, we have hundreds of pharmacies, many of whom will gladly take the business of those rejected by other pharmacies. In a city like ours, the problem solves itself.
My question for you, though, is the small town scenario. If you live in a very conservative, small town dominated by a Wal-Mart, what recourse do you have if Wal-Mart decides they will not carry “Plan B”? I would imagine demand for the drug is pretty limited and would certainly not be enough to inspire someone else to open a business offering it for sale. Especially in a conservative community and especially when going up against a large chain like Wal-Mart. What is the answer here that does not involve state intervention?
BTW, Contrarian, I was happy to give you a shout out on my blog. Yours is a different voice and I do enjoy hearing it, even when I disagree. Plus, it’s nice to be able to debate an issue with someone who doesn’t immediately head for the Nazi analogies.